From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 07:10:31 PDT
Gallivanting Tripper wrote: > > I vote against 165:A, because what went on 4 rounds ago is nobody's > business. Furthermore, there was no such rule, as round 165 consisted of two rules labeled 165:1 and 165:2. As this isn't a valid overrule proposal, I won't vote on it. > Nevertheless, I propose 169:A as follows: > > -----169:A------- > That the rule which the Judge has re-labeled 169:15 but whose author labeled > it 169:14 be declared VALID. > ---------------- I think Aron's point is quite valid. I refer you to round 132, "Numerology", in which the rules were numbered, in order: 1, 3, 2, 4, 17, 567845, 142857, and 123. The Judge used a different system to number the rules (which, incidentally, didn't make things any less confusing). If this round isn't archived on the web, I can repost the final summary. The important point is this: for the purpose of validity, the numbers designated by the rules themselves took precedence over the numbers designated by the Judge.[1] I would go ahead and vote for this proposal, but Anton raises a very good point about the number of turns taken being listed on the side of the board. If there is no good answer to this, then the rule should actually be INVALID rather than UNSUCCESSFUL, but an overrule to that effect is clearly irrelevant at this point. -Jesse [1] By the way, this illustrates one good reason why restrictions refering in any way to rule numbers send up red flags in my head. If I feel the need to refer to particular rules, I prefer to stick with something like "the Nth VALID rule". Maybe I should write up a list of such red flags, and how I try to avoid them. (The next that comes to mind is "from now on", which has caused heated debate in the past. I try to stick with "future rules must".) -- Rule Date: 2001-10-03 14:10:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST