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