Rule 300:1
Sean Hunt
Alex Smith
> No rule can contain multiple words identical lengthwise, I write.
Oh, that's /hideous/, I like it.
+1 for an interesting take on the round's topic, that forces a really
unnatural writing style
+0.5 for being rather vague in what it actually means (normally this
would be a deduction, but not /this/ round)
+0.5 for being an unfairly narrow restriction
= 2 style points
--
ais523
Judge, round 300
Sean Hunt
I note that you didn't rule as to its validity, and I now realize that
it's worth considering whether or not the restriction (on a "rule")
applies to the ROs as well, in which case it is INVALID.
Alex Smith
Oh, I meant to say VALID, presumably I forgot.
By default, "rule" in a fantasy rule generally refers to this round's
fantasy rules as a whole, rather than the Regular Ordinances, fantasy
rules from previous rounds, or, say, the rules of Agora. The FRC is
certainly susceptible to people attempting to use unusual definitions of
pretty much anything, though.
--
ais523
Ed Murphy
The ROs are "ordinances", not "rules".
There was at least one round during which the ROs in their entirety
were overruled with a version using only one-syllable words:
http://www.sir-toby.com/nomic-archives/frc/round108.txt
but even then, they were called "base laws". (I think there was
another such round during which the ROs were similarly overruled
to describe the "fun rules club", but no one seems to have archived
that one.)
Ed Murphy
But it /is/ INVALID ("words" and "write").
Alex Smith
Gah, that'll teach me for trying to work out validity of such an awkward
condition in my head. (Of course, the full stop doesn't count as part of
"write"!)
Proposal: Overrule 300:1 to INVALID. I vote FOR this proposal.
--
ais523
Ted Rathkopf
Ed Murphy
Not that this proposal won't make it unambiguous, but general past
practice has been that the judge can change eir ruling simply by
sending a new message within (say) a few days after eir first ruling.