This is not rule 221:f

From: Joshua (
Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 22:45:21 PST

This is not rule f in round 221 of the Fantasy Rules Committee. At
least I didn't think of it as a rule when I was started posting it, but
neither did David think he was posting a rule when he accidentally
submitted rule 221:f (or is it g? I can't keep track).  I'm pretty sure
David Nicol, who once participated in the "4 dimensional Scrabble
Round" (round 16) of the Fantasy Rules Committee, never expected that
his question about the judges policy of treating ever submission to the
list as a rule would end up being treated as a rule itself.  But
perhaps he did.

As for my own view on the debate I'm ambivalent. On one hand the RO's
don't support this practice. On the other hand tradition has allowed
judges to get away with it.  In fact I recall having done precisely
that myself when some new member posted helpful information about how
to buy viagra online.  But I digress, so I'll stop.

Every valid rule in this round must use it's anecdotes about past rules
and rounds to shed more light on this contentious question.  Unless
they aren't rules at all in which case they don't care about being
valid or invalid.

Everyone knows, when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of u and mption.            -s.l.j in t.l.k.g

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