Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -2.0

Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 14:22:46 PST

This posting is indended as a "metagame post" as interpreted in "Re: This
is not rule 221:f  VALID, +2.5".

In support of 221:d (2 of 2), I believe it is 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.

A rule that finds unexpected consequences from 221:d (1 of 2) would cause
221:d (1 of 2) to stop having an effect on the game.  Future rules could
then disregard it and still be valid.  I do not believe the mechanic of
rules losing their effect on the game is against the ROs - is it?

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

The anecdote (and moral) contained in anecdote 221:d (2 of 2) was posted
twice, word for word, as specified in anecdote 221:e (1 of 2).  As
indended, the first time it was posted just happened to occur before this
rule was posted in rule 221:d (1 of 2).

I agree with "no new restriction" as this actually proposes a new way to
remove a restriction.

My 2 cents.


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