From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 07:10:44 PST
Joshua <joshua_at_bearsend.ca> writes: > 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 Is this a rule: Says it wasn't intended as such, but that it could be. It looks like a rule to me. Else why would it have a restriction? (Judge's comment: I believe David's "what the unexpected consequences..." post was expected to be judged as a rule, since it was posted twice and contained a moral. In addition, the ROs, as far as I can see, do not specify a way to distinguish rule posts from metagame posts and therefore are not unsupportive of the Judge's using eir discretion. I should add that I have not judged anything as a rule in this round that I did not think was expected to be judged as a rule, though admittedly I was aware 221:b probably was not expected to be judged twice. And note that there have been metagame posts which I have not judged as rules.) Validity: Contains unexpected consequences relating to previous rules. If valid, the restriction "Every valid rule... must use it's [sic] anecdotes about past rules and rounds to shed more light on this contentious question." I interpret this as placing no restrictions on valid rules which do not contain anecdotes about past rules and rounds, i.e. 221:a, 221:b, and 221:b. Whether 221:d, what the unexpected consequence in 221:e was supposed to be, and This is not rule 221:f shed more light on Joshua's question is a matter of opinion; in my opinion they do. VALID. Style: A reasonable restriction, some opinions with which I disagree but I won't dock points for that, a rogue apostrophe dragging things down. +2.5. Is david nicol, posting in this round and claiming to be a new player, in fact the same David Nicol of round 16? -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST