Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!not-for-mail
From: buzzard@TheWorld.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Begegnung Am Fluss (was Adam's reviews)
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <GMxMuu.2nC@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 06:47:15 GMT
References: <9t26oa$hqg$1@drizzle.com> <9t4ime$g0c$1@drizzle.com> <MPG.165fa47fe3ced7689896ea@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <9t4uhp$d8r$1@news.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi01-g.std.com
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
Lines: 22
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:66582

Andrew Plotkin  <erkyrath@eblong.com> wrote:
>Sometimes, a game pisses me off enough that I don't event want to
>start playing it. Nonetheless, it is valid to say that I have formed
>an opinion about it.

Forming an opinion doesn't mean it is acceptable to vote on the
game, though; I don't think people are complaining that Adam
didn't like it or that he scored it a 1, but rather that he
*voted* it a 1.

A careful reading of the rules and the judging page does not
seem to actually say "you must play a game to vote on it",
but it is implied by an awful lot of text: "although you
are honor bound to play and vote on as many games as possible",
and "you may still vote as long as you have played five or more
games", and it seems awfully likely that "play to vote" is meant.

Of course, as a sometime judge who has quit after only two
minutes of play, I admit that defining *exactly* what qualifies
as "having played it" is something of a grey area.

SeanB
