RE: Proposal 185:C

From: Jonathan Van Matre (JVanMatre_at_oslp.com)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 12:42:45 PDT


The Wizard is not power-hungry, and you are right on the money with #2
-- The Wizard hopes that the Judge will run a clean game, but given the
theme of the round, leaving some room for the Judge to venture to the
dark side seemed like a good opportunity for additional fun and
"mayhem".  Sets up situations where defamation of the judge becomes de
rigeur: "The Judge is a punk-ass bitch, yo!  Anyway, here's my rule..."

Concerning the first issue, you may be right.  I thought that as stated,
it should require the first judgement of a rule to be per the usual
standards, but allow subsequent revisions at the judge's discretion.
But just to spell it out clearly, I'll rescind 185:C and replace it with
an improved 185:D.

--jvm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aron Wall [mailto:aron_at_wall.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:36 PM
> To: frc_at_trolltech.com
> Subject: Re: Proposal 185:C
>
>
> I believe that the proposal, as currently stated, would not
> in fact have the effect that Jonathan thinks it has.  The
> Judge is constrained to decide whether or not a rule is VALID
> or not based only on whether or not it is consistant with
> previous fantasy rules.  This proposal does not release the
> Judge from this obligation, merely allow him to change his
> mind on the question.  If the phrase "for any reason" were
> inserted then it would work.
>
> Jonathan Van Matre wrote:
>
> > PROPOSED:  For the duration of Round 185, The Judge shall have the
> > authority to change eir ruling on any rule, and the style points
> > awarded to that rule, at any time.
> >
> > ARGUMENT:  It is expected that the Judge will not do so
> arbitrarily,
> > but within the constraints of Rule 185:1.  This is to facilitate a
> > changing player "reputation" which is synonymous with the
> style score,
> > and allow players to invalidate each other's rules by
> noting errors in
> > them, thereby setting up a climate in which accusations of libel,
> > slander, and defamation may run rampant.  See Rule 185:1 for a more
> > detailed explanation.
>
> Also, why is it "expected" that the Judge will only invoke
> this power within the confines of the first rule?  I suggest that:
>
> 1) The Wizard, power hungry as always, wishes to have his and
> only his rule have this special privilege.
>
> 2) The Judge, considering his character, would be unlikely to
> show the restraint requested (which I may note is not part of
> the proposal itself). While his motives for this would be
> entirely selfish, I think that this lack of reststraint would
> service the greater good of equal meyham for all.
>
> Aron Wall
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:36:01 GMT
>
>

--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:44:13 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST