Re: 234:11 INVALID -1 Style

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 13:26:07 PDT


Ed Murphy wrote:

> This rule is invalid.

And so it is, regardless of which number rule it is.

I'm not sure if you know exactly which restrictions you were dodging
with this invalid rule ploy.  Assuming this rule came before 234:12 (a
question which I will not consider since it happens not to make a
difference to validity and shouldn't make a difference to style), it was
actually the *tenth* rule of the round.  This is because 234:6 was
posted by an ineligible player, and therefore *never was a real rule*.
That is why I gave you the mysterious style point for 234:9, because of
the deviousness (whether intended or unintended) of restricting what
appeared to be the next rule but which was actually the one after that.
I was hoping that it would trick someone and invalidate 234:11.
Unfortunately, this rule invalidates itself.

Since 234:12 does not in any way follow the restrictions placed upon the
eleventh rule, I'm assuming that you thought that you were dodging the
eleventh rule restrictions with this rule, thus leaving the coast
completely clear for the twelfth.  In fact, you dodged the easier
restriction and ended up making 234:12 fall on the harder one.  Ouch.
Doesn't matter for validity, since 234:12 is INVALID no matter what, as
I shall shortly show.

Now as far as style is concerned, if I punished Quazie for dodging an
unpleasant restriction, I should punish you as well.  -1 Style,
therefore.

Aron Wall

P.S. You may recall that I said his rule passed on a technicality.  I
don't actually think that quoting a rule's restrictions word for word
satisfies the demand that it "explain at least one method by which the
TVRotR could satisfy the restriction in 234:3."  A requirement is not a
method for satisfying that requirement, especially when it is apparently
impossible to meet.  The techinicality is that his rule was actually the
ninth rule and therefore had no need to satisfy the restriction.  Yes,
this means that about 13/14ths of Quazie's rule was completely
unnecessary.


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