Ok, I've bitten. What's a Lakesailoring?

Judgement - no win for Jenku

hm - let's look at the rules...
----
d) The 9d rule: It is possible to slam-dunk win an argument about Lakeregs: someone else has to mention the word “Lakeregs” (in that exact format, - if they say “the rules” or other stuff then you can’t leap in with this killer ) - and then after that WHOEVER first quotes rule 9d in the form proscribed in 9e) below WINS the argument, even if they are completely wrong. This should save loads of time and favours people who read rules.

e) The correct format for a slam-dunk win as in 9d above is a post with first sentence as follows

“I’m afraid that’s actually incorrect according to LakeRegs Rule 9d”.

-----
Now, I reckon

Yes - Lakesailor did mention the word "lakeregs" by quoting the text of Lakeregs. So all set for the slam dunk.

BUT

jenku failed to follow the format: He lobbed in a great big quote (of lakesailors post, as it happens) which came first - so his othrwise perfect slam dunk FAILS. Very near though.



So jenku LOSES. Or at least he doesn't win...
 
No win for BrendanS either ...it\'s lakesailor!

oh dear - read the rules further though

---

9...

f) If someone quotes 9e before another poster quotes the word Lakeregs, or if they use the wrong syntax, or quotes it too early or not as first sentence then they LOSE the argument, and the person who quoted the word “Lakeregs” first wins – regardless of being correct or incorrect. This should make it easy to decide who is right and who is wrong.

-------

So it is easy - Lakesailor wins.

Sorry!
 
Re: No win for BrendanS either ...it\'s lakesailor!

d) The 9d rule: It is possible to slam-dunk win an argument about Lakeregs: someone else has to mention the word “Lakeregs” (in that exact format, - if they say “the rules” or other stuff then you can’t leap in with this killer ) - and then after that WHOEVER first quotes rule 9d in the form proscribed in 9e) below WINS the argument, even if they are completely wrong. This should save loads of time and favours people who read rules.
 
Re: harumph:

ah but there was an attempted slam dunk - and 9f makes it clear that the win/lose is decided at that point. i think...

perhaps a revision is in order to clrify the issue...
 
Re: harumph:

9f def doesn't apply here. I used to make companies millions by questioning the influence of a semi colon in a multi million pound contract, so obviously can't be too wound up about this sort of thing

You are correct, it needs clarifying.
 
Re: harumph:

the other issue is that, that 99,99% of forumites don't understand the current lakesailoring rules. Even the basic levels. Do we simply revise the current rules with new amendments and provisos, or rewrite them in simple English.

I'd go for revision with amendments, as we can then charge consultancy on interpretation.
 
Re: harumph:

two separte bits seem to conflict - one implies that a win/lose is decided at the first slamdunk attempt, elsewhere that there could be many attempts and the fist coorrect one wins.

If you are so jolly good at contracts perhaps you could tidy it up for revison 1.1? However, if you make any millions out of it i ought to have say half, really, please?
 
Re: harumph:

I should really pm you about this, but lets hope no one reads it as pretty boring.
Lets leave it as is, then lots of legal fees to be picked up sorting out the mess later. If we rewrite sensibly, no arguements, and no fees
 
Re: harumph:

[ QUOTE ]
I used to make companies millions by questioning the influence of a semi colon

[/ QUOTE ] Surely not. I don't believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top