From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 09 2004 - 06:25:00 PST
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> writes: > ----- begin copy 1 of 2 ----- > > Here is a restriction on all rules after the second copy of this > rule: to be valid, they must be written by me. This is a consequence > of this round making my head hurt, and I believe the consequence was > unexpected by at least some of the other players. The moral of it is, > sometimes we do thoroughly unstylish things; sometimes we have to. > > ------ end copy 1 of 2 ------ > > ----- begin copy 2 of 2 ----- > > Here is a restriction on all rules after the second copy of this > rule: to be valid, they must be written by me. This is a consequence > of this round making my head hurt, and I believe the consequence was > unexpected by at least some of the other players. The moral of it is, > sometimes we do thoroughly unstylish things; sometimes we have to. > > ------ end copy 2 of 2 ------ Validity: Has anecdote of unexpected consequences relating to previous rules. Has a moral, though it doesn't need it. Posted twice, though it doesn't need to be. A bold gambit, BUT... Rule This is not rule 221:f requires anecdotes to shed more light on "this contentious question". It's not entirely obvious what "this contentious question" is; the only question asked in This is not rule 221:f is "or is it g?", but that may not be it. If the contentious question is "How about them pesky rules versus metagame distinctions, eh?", however, then I think we can agree its resolution sometimes involves making unstylish decisions (at least, it does when I'm doing it), and Ed's moral sheds some light on that. VALID. Style: -3.0, of course. -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST