From: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 10:51:33 PST
I did not expect that, as a consequence of posting 221:d, it could overly restrict future rules: > Um - I don't think Joshua expected to be docked 1.5 style pointes just for > reposting the same rule. Its not clear, but he might not have intended to > post that rule twice. The anecdote of Joshua's is a sad one. But > hopefully this rule will fare better, because I understand that for this > rule to have an effect on the game it must be totally unambiguous: > > Future rules must point out an unexpected consequence involving at least > one previous rule. > > I think the unexpected consequences of Joshua's double posting > demonstrates a real moral for FRC: Inspired but literal judging can result > in new interesting rules. So, to resolve this, I'd like to add that rule 221:d will have no effect on the game if one and only one future rule should point out yet another unexpected consequence of 221:d. Jae
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST