234:13 VALID -- probably -3 Style (also +1 to Bert)

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 15:32:56 PDT


Quazie wrote:

> The next rule of this round, to be valid, must satisfy all
> restrictions placed upon the tenth valid rule of this round.
>
> It must also include a palindrome of more than 5 letters long. (e.g.
> Go hang a salami, i'm a lasagna hog)
>
> It must also systematically determine which came first, the chicken or the egg.
>
> Then it must describe why the writer of said rule believes humans do
> not lay eggs.

VALID.  But why do you keep restricting other rules to do the same thing that the
TVRotR has to do?  Doesn't that take all the specialness away from the tenth valid
rule?  Placing nearly impossible restrictions on the TVRotR is fair game, since it
is after all the whole point.  And I also appreciate reasonable restrictions on
other rules of the round, though considering the theme it is understandable if
these have been rare.  This, however, seems unlikely to do anything but create a
repeat of 234:11, or a nearly impossible next rule.  Even if the next rule is
valid, the situation is hardly better, since the tenth valid rule will have *less*
restrictions on it than the one immediately preceeding it, and what fun is that?

The last two restrictions of this rule have some charm to them.  But the
palindrome constraint is fairly uninspired.  In general this round (this comment
applies to the other players as well), seems to be filled with eclectic random
restrictions, and with a few exceptions no one seems to have come up with much
that interests me.  But I think that there is a deeper problem here.  No one seems
to be thinking about following restrictions--just randomly assigning them.  Has it
occured to anyone that clever ways of following restrictions might be stylish,
more so than unclever dodges?  (Actually, now that I think about it, it did.  The
very first rule of the round, by Bert, would have required each rule to follow its
own restriction.  Too bad it was invalid.  In retrospect I'll give +1 extra style
point that rule).

On the one hand I don't want to be too harsh on a new player, but on the other
hand I feel that this rule, coming as it does on a long series of injustices,
cannot just be winked at, especially since it throws off the whole thematic
balance of the round (as explained above).  I feel that nothing short of the
minimum style award will produce the right effect.  For previous rules I have
mitigated the style award to a smaller value.  Here I feel this kind of comprimise
is inappropriate.  And yet there are some restrictions of this rule that I like.
The overall problem of the rule, however, makes it incredibly implausible that any
rule will ever even make a good faith attempt to satisfy these restrictions.  So
to some extent the good parts of this rule are rendered completely useless by the
bad parts.

You can see my conflicting motivations.  I do not think this is a situation which
can quite be handled with a number.  So I will do something more subtle--and
hopefully more stylish--and give a test, using a conditional award:

This rule shall recieve -3 Style points (the minimum allowed) UNLESS any valid
rule is posted this round which satisfies all the restrictions placed upon the
"next rule" by this rule.  This applies whether or not the rule is posted by
Quazie and whether or not it is the ninth valid rule of the round.  In that case
this rule shall be acquitted, and will recieve 0 Style points.

So if I am wrong and fulfilling the requirements of this rule *is* possible,
Quazie has a mechanism for showing that this rule deserves better.

The Judge.


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