From: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 11:07:47 PDT
"Re: 224:2" INVALID +0.1 224:2 is now "effective" and remains "VALID". 224:2 (james) is now "effective" and remains "VALID". I want to be consistant here. In my post "224:1 -- INVALID +1" I stated that seconding and discussion would be judged as valid play in accordance with 224:1 if 224:1 was seconded. 224:2 seconded it. "224:2 (james) VALID +2" I ruled that stated actions, like "seconding" could not be duplicated. Although is may seem that INVALID 224:1 is causing this posting to be INVALID, it is actually a judgement that I made that is causing this posing to be interpreted as a rule. The ROs do not rule on how to differentiate rule posts from other posts, so I am using my own (perhaps misguided) discresion here. Style: +1 Seconds two rules! -1 Does not introduce an additional rule. +0.1 second posting. > > I second 224:2 > > > -- > david nicol > "People used to be able to read my thoughts, but > it doesn't appear to work any more. Should I eat less > cheese?" > -- > Elizabeth > Woods > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST