Re: anecdote 221:d INVALID, -1.5

From: Richard S. Holmes (
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 20:15:52 PST writes:

> 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:

I've seen no rule submitted under the name '221:d (2 of 2)'.  I have
seen two posts from you titled 'anecdote 221:d'.  I assume you refer
to the second of these.

> > 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?

It certainly is.  Any rule that is inconsistent with any prior valid
rule must be judged invalid; a rule that asserts otherwise is
inconsistent with the ROs.

> > 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).  

So anecdote 221:d (1 of 2) was posted twice.  But anecdote 221:d (2 of
2) (which contained the second posting of anecdote 221:d (1 of 2)) was
not.  This is moot, however, since the double posting requirement was
later rejudged invalid.  Style adjusted to -1.5.

- Rich Holmes
  Parish, NY

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