Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -2.0

From: Richard S. Holmes (
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 18:56:52 PST writes:

> I did not expect that, as a consequence of posting 221:d, it could overly
> restrict future rules:
> > Um - I don't think Joshua expected to be docked 1.5 style pointes just for
> > reposting the same rule.  Its not clear, but he might not have intended to
> > post that rule twice.  The anecdote of Joshua's is a sad one.  But
> > hopefully this rule will fare better, because I understand that for this
> > rule to have an effect on the game it must be totally unambiguous:
> >
> > Future rules must point out an unexpected consequence involving at least
> > one previous rule.
> >
> > I think the unexpected consequences of Joshua's double posting
> > demonstrates a real moral for FRC: Inspired but literal judging can result
> > in new interesting rules.
> So, to resolve this, I'd like to add that rule 221:d will have no effect
> on the game if one and only one future rule should point out yet another
> unexpected consequence of 221:d.
> Jae

Validity: Contains no moral, but we've already had a moral, so that's
OK.  Has unexected consequences relating to a previous rule.  Has not
been posted twice, so cannot at this time be found valid.
Unfortunately, it can be found invalid: The last sentence implies a
rule that is inconsistent with 221:d can still be judged valid, an
assertion not consistent with the R.O.'s.

Style: Invalid, not posted twice, and no new restriction.  -2.0.

- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST