Re: This is not rule 221:f VALID, +2.5

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