I guess that would be another thing worth pointing out. The rules are
simple on purpose, as most of us know what is intended, or (hopefully) can
easily figure it out. I hope we never get to the point where rules need to
be many pages long to prevent those who wish to be silly from playing games
with the rules.
We also need to remember not everyone speaks English natively, and things
can be lost when translating the rules to different languages, or
translating rules from a different language to English. If rules must run
many pages, there are many more chances for error.
So far simple rules seem to be work well, and everyone can have fun. Lets
hope we can keep it that way.
Tom - VE3CX
Maybe those who like to skate on the thin ice of rule's limits would need
> one that specifies about the numbers, something like this:
> "Use the positive integer numbers, progressive, consecutive and ADJACENT".
> Or, kindergarten style: "Use 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and always one more"
>
> Adjacent, maybe this word was the intention when rulemakers wrote
> "consecutive", I think that most of us think of the word consecutive as
> "adjacent" when we use it.
>
>
> Anyway, we all know the intention of the rulemakers. It's easy. I hope that
> we won't ever need to involve the Supreme Court in our games one of these
> days...
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|