I'd like to drop the hypothetical scrabble example and replace it with one that actually happened to me.
Once I had a novice master come up with what he thought was a really cool rule: akhtbn iff it is a stack of pyramids such that the colors of the top two combine additively to create the bottom color. In other words, valid koans were things like red-blue-purple, blue-yellow-green, blue-green-cyan, etc. I'm colorblind. I eventually gave up, because from my perspective I could tell that colors mattered, but what specific combinations of colors were accepted appeared completely arbitrary.
Would I mark every koan the same way if I had phrased the rule like that? Probably not. Was it a valid and consistent rule?
Absolutely. Heck, if I hadn't been colorblind, it probably would have been downright easy. I just personally wouldn't use a rule like that because it doesn't feel "elegant" to me, in the sense that it relies on either a long list of conditions or an external property (depending on how you phrase it).
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Buddha Buck
<blaisepascal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David "Barahon" Willson
<
DLWillson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Our only house rule bans the use of "or" in the rule. This implies a ban on
> iterative sets, like the stupid Scrabble rule.
>
> To re-state it in the positive: The rule must be one simple rule, not a
> collection of more than one rules.
enumeration of duodecimal prime koans" koan black?
>
> When we play next, I'll suggest two new house rules:
>
> The rule must be built in concepts that are familiar to all players. No
> "prime number rules or modulus rules when playing with grammar-schoolers,
> for instance.
Covered in "Don't be a dick", I would think.
>
> Don't be a dick. I like that rule.
I don't claim credit for it; I heard it from both Phil Plait (the Bad
Astronomer) and Wil Wheaton (one of the stars of Stand By Me, with
occasional appearances in a late-80's SF show).