I suppose I should clarify slightly, I don't necessarily have an issue with the rule itself. My main issue is timing/reasoning of/for implementation. We have 10 officers with 11 protects. I just think it's unreasonable to implement that kind of rule simply due to 1 protect out of 11 was like that jokingly made it obvious that he was looking for a reason to protect a specific person and happened to be right. I will admit, I said wtf to myself when I saw mingtian's initial protect and don't entirely understand how he got to that meaning nickname either, my point earlier was simply that that was his solution to the clue.Assassinator wrote:I meant to include a disclaimer about having actually solved the clue for quadratic. As for the others:I simply don't understand the reasoning there. But what really prompted the rule was this:mingtian wrote:I protect Z because of clue 1. NicknameI understand the second part, but he protected based on fear and tried to justify it. It should be the other way around.zyzzyva98 wrote:I protect amerikestrel because I don't want to lose those two protects each round- I mean, because that portmanteau of a nick could really irk someone if that's something they dislike.
EDIT: That being said, as long as you are reasonable with your interpretations of said rule (as I said earlier, this style clue is prone to all sorts of interpretations and solutions), I'll drop my objection.
EDIT2: I applaud you for that surprisingly calm and un-gung-ho response to my initial rant.