| |
BGonline.org Forums
Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: Time to stir the cauldron again... Appeals committee (Phil Simborg)
Date: Wednesday, 28 October 2009, at 1:12 a.m.
I hate to say this, but it looks like we are in agreement
Why hate? There are worse things that can be said ;)
Earlier today, I was reading an article in an old magazine. The jist of it was this: Some folks were the rulemakers in a particular place and had just changed a rule. The writer acknowledged that there were good reasons for following the same rules that were followed elsewhere. Nevertheless, he was convinced that if a jurisdiction (such as theirs) had a better idea for a rule, they ought to go ahead and make the change in that place, and encourage those in authority in other places to consider also adopting the superior rule. That is something that can happen, with our happy situation of having rulemakers here and there and there who don't have to agree with each other.
The article was in Flintbackgammonews about ten years ago, the place was a "Chicago chouette," and (assuming I've summarized the point fairly), I agree with its author, Phil Simborg.
For some years there were three versions of the premature roll rule -- (1) they never count (2) they always count and (3) they count only when the other player wants them to count. Then, one body that followed (1) changed its rule to (3), and then some time later a body that followed (1) also changed to (3). So now they all agree. And that's good. But I'm thinking that it's good mainly because (3) is the version I like best, not so much because everyone agrees about it now.
Another thing in that old article --- man, it sure has been a long time that some folks have been suggesting that dice landing flat on top of checkers ought not be considered cocked!
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.