Apparently you don't grasp the idea of "logic".hgm wrote:Apparently you don't grasp the concept of rules.bob wrote:Sorry if you don't agree. That really is irrelevant.
Let me try to explain them to you, then:
When you make rules, you play by them. It is the TD's task to maintain the rules. If people transgress the rules, they will face sanctions. That they think the rules are bad, will not be considered an excuse or justification for violating them. That would only have been relevant during the rue-making process, if they would have participated in that. Not for the enforcement of the rules.
That'how it works. In every civilized society...
To wit:
we don't want clones. Everyone agrees. yet we supposedly want to allow one author to write two programs and enter both? I've never noticed the "multiple entries by one author issue" since that is _explicitly_ excluded from WCCC events today, and was also excluded from ACM events in the past. I see absolutely no justification to say that we can't have fruit, and toga, and any other derivative work, glaurung, stockfish, and other derivatives, if we are going to let one programmer enter two or more engines. It is completely illogical. It provides another opportunity for mischief.
I simply can't think of one good reason why we would want to see this happen, with the one exception of allowing a weaker entry in just to give us an even number of opponents. But not two strong copies of the same program. I can't even think of a bad reason why we would want to see this happen. I can't enter a human chess tournament and play on two boards at the same time. This is just one of those ideas/discussions that makes one mutter "bullshit, how dumb can things get?" repeatedly.
Bad idea. Illogical idea. Nonsensical idea. Vague terms (significantly different). What does that mean? Who decides what it means? Who verifies this? Who wants to waste the effort to verify this? I don't care what current rules say, this is a bad idea. If we want to vote on the idea, I vote "no". If this is something some want, fine. I don't want to play in such events. One entrant can have one or more authors. None of those authors can be authors of another program, or a book used by more than one program. A program and its set of contributors should be disjoint from any other program or part of another program. Allowing this makes no sense. Like it or not.
As far as your "rules" go. We have had rules since 1974. They have been modified here and there as loopholes or exceptions were recognized. To reach the point where the ICCA/ICGA rules have been adopted by every tournament I have seen. This includes ACM, ICCA, ICGA, WCCC, WMCCC (once the folly of multiple entrants from one commercial company was recognized and eliminated), CCT, and such. And as a result, I simply failed to notice this rather ridiculous inclusion in the rules. And I'm not personally interested in playing in such events, for all the reasons I (and others) have previously posted.
It is just a bad idea that will lead to more trouble than it is worth.
