Re: anecdote 221:z (1 of 2) (2 of 2) VALID, -3.0

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