Thu, 12 Jun 2003 02:19:42 +0100
Carl Muckenhoupt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> > A proposal for one new rule:
> > Ex Post Facto Repeal [Psmith]
> > The players may, by unanimous agreement, alter the state of the game
> > to be as if some specified rule or rules had been removed from the set
> > of rules at a specified date, provided no actions have been taken that
> > would be invalidated by their removal.
> Aye, this sounds like a generally good idea to me. However, it doesn't
> help with the immediate problem. Repealing Rule 24 ex post facto *would*
> invalidate actions that have been taken - specifically, adding Roger
> Carbol back into the game after he was removed for nonparticipation back
> in March.
That's why I added the "at a specified date" clause; we simply set
that date to after Roger's readdition, but before jwalrus and Jota
acquired their third demerit.
> I propose the following instead:
> Moving the Goalposts Back [baf]
> Add the following rule:
> Any player with First Honours wins.
Nay. I don't know whether anyone _does_ have First Honours (no one had
250 points on 21 May), and I'd prefer not to have to trawl through the
mail archive to work out which actions happened to be valid and which didn't
under an accelerated schedule.
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." :
: -- Lebling's Inversion of Clarke's Third Law :