From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 19:24:03 PST
be VALID, +1.0 References: <20040204204158.C0B591BDE94_at_kalyani.oryx.com> From: rsholmes_at_rodan.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes) Date: 05 Feb 2004 22:23:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: David nicol's message of "Wed, 4 Feb 2004 21:45:08 +0100 (CET)" Message-ID: <xzc3c9odh6f.fsf_at_rodan.syr.edu> Lines: 104 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 David nicol <whatever_at_davidnicol.com> writes: > Wow. > > The intention of the player posting 221:e was to redefine "posting" > from "single posting" to "double posting" and 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 were > together intended to be construed as a single, double-posted rule. > > That I went and did that was supposed to be an unexpected > consequence of The Judge deciding to interpret the two postings > of 221:b as separate submissions rather than one submission: he > (unexpectedly) triggered a protesting-response against his > literalist iron fist which would then mean More Work (the > consequence.) > > It appears that His Honor Rich Holmes is persisting in seeing a > strict one-to-one relationship between messages posted to the list > and plays. I do not agree with this but I am a new player and > not familiar with established custom. Anyway we don't appear > to be completely solid with our division between game play and > meta-play -- which is certainly no problem here, but is merely > curious, and this posting attempts to clarify the situation, > for certain definitions of "clarify." > > JAE's later posting titled "anecdote 221:d" seems to explicitly > make the same point -- Having The Same Subject Line is no longer > meaningful -- it is not clear to this player if that posting was > intended as a play or not > > Here's a proposal: during round 221, ALL list traffic except > that originating with His Honor and that with subject lines clearly > identifying it as responses to posts from His Honor (that > is, prefixing the subject of a Richard Holmes post with /Re: /) > are to be construed as game play; only the ones deemed VALID will > restrict play. > > The required moral, applicable to many situations, is, a bird in the > hand is worth two in the bush. > > > Wow. > > The intention of the player posting 221:e was to redefine "posting" > from "single posting" to "double posting" and 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 were > together intended to be construed as a single, double-posted rule. > > That I went and did that was supposed to be an unexpected > consequence of The Judge deciding to interpret the two postings > of 221:b as separate submissions rather than one submission: he > (unexpectedly) triggered a protesting-response against his > literalist iron fist which would then mean More Work (the > consequence.) > > It appears that His Honor Rich Holmes is persisting in seeing a > strict one-to-one relationship between messages posted to the list > and plays. I do not agree with this but I am a new player and > not familiar with established custom. Anyway we don't appear > to be completely solid with our division between game play and > meta-play -- which is certainly no problem here, but is merely > curious, and this posting attempts to clarify the situation, > for certain definitions of "clarify." > > JAE's later posting titled "anecdote 221:d" seems to explicitly > make the same point -- Having The Same Subject Line is no longer > meaningful -- it is not clear to this player if that posting was > intended as a play or not > > Here's a proposal: during round 221, ALL list traffic except > that originating with His Honor and that with subject lines clearly > identifying it as responses to posts from His Honor (that > is, prefixing the subject of a Richard Holmes post with /Re: /) > are to be construed as game play; only the ones deemed VALID will > restrict play. > > The required moral, applicable to many situations, is, a bird in the > hand is worth two in the bush. > > > David Nicol > invalid and careless since 2004 This seems to attempt to be a Rule and a Proposal both at the same time, which is, to say the least, quaint. But not contrary to the R.O.s in any way I can see. I will interpret the paragraph beginning "Here's a proposal" as an Override Proposal (#221.1), voting on which is now open; until and unless it passes, the proposed clarification of the R.O.s shall have no effect. Without the words "Here's a proposal" I probably would have regarded this paragraph as a fantasy rule restriction, and likely an invalid one, I vote AGAINST this proposal. Validity: Contains unexpected consequences relating to previous rules. Contains a moral (not needed) and a duplicate posting (also not needed). No problems. VALID. Style: Overly long, and confusing with its combination of Rule and Proposal. No new restriction. But... David, is this your first round? If so I hadn't realized, and will apply your new player style bonus here: +1.0. -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST