Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Huh?

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Jul 98 16:44:22 -0400

On Wed, Jul 1, 1998 4:07 PM, JT <[email-masked]> wrote:
>You have already seen the proposal I referenced above since I sent it to
>you pretty much immediately after i sent the above.  I believe that the
>secretaries should seperate their 'working' knowledge of the game from
>their playing knowledge in some respects.  Currently the only secretary
>that this really impacts is the SoT.  However, should it ever be the case
>that some other secretary or game officer had foreknowledge which would
>allow them to play to an advantage, I would institute a similar crime (or
>modify the existing one) to cover that as well.

Why not make the rule more general now, rather than specifying one
secretary and having to add another rule or change this one later?

--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Visit my webpage: http://world.std.com/~campbell/Brian/
Visit the Latin Club webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/
Visit the MacroNomic webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/macronomic/

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:11:19 -0700 (PDT)

>secretary and having to add another rule or change this one later?

Mainly because I couldn't come up with a way to do so cleanly immediately,
but wanted to get that rule in there :)  Since there was only one
problematic (imho) posistion currently, I decided to fix the problem
now and generalize it later.

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]