RE: Rule 185:1: INVALID, +1.7

From: Jonathan Van Matre (JVanMatre_at_oslp.com)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 07:44:59 PDT


<this is not a rule>
I beg to differ.  It only describes a special case that would be true
anyway if Rule 185:1 is VALID.  Under RO6, rules must be consistent with
previous rules.  Therefore, all subsequent rules that claim defamation
must be consistent with the criteria for defamation set out in rule 1,
if rule 1 is VALID.  It's not changing the criteria for validity, only
elaborating on them.
</this is not a rule>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard S. Holmes [mailto:rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: Fantasy Rules Committee
> Subject: Re: Rule 185:1: INVALID, +1.7
>
>
> rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu (Richard S. Holmes) writes:
>
> > "Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com> writes:
> >
> > > It has come to the attention of the FRC Oversight Committee that
> > > recent rounds have contained an inordinate number of
> errors, ranging
> > > from the merely grammatical to errors in judgement.  For example,
> > > use of the non-word "proceedure" and an ill-advised pun
> on the name
> > > of the current pontiff and an obscure Texas Libertarian
> politician
> > > were both committed in the previous round.  Therefore, all FRC
> > > members are enjoined to take corrective action whenever
> they discern
> > > an error committed by another member of the FRC.
> > >
> > > However, FRC members are advised to remain cautious of committing
> > > slander, libel, or defamation.  Please bear in mind the three
> > > criteria for defamation:
> > >
> > > 1) The statement must be untrue,
> > > 2) The statement must be communicated to a third party, and
> > > 3) The statement must be demonstrably harmful to the
> reputation of
> > > the victim.
> > >
> > > For the purposes of this round, a player's total
> accumulated Style
> > > points in the round will be considered a reflection of
> eir Reputation.
> > >
> > > Players may submit Rules claiming damages for defamation.
>  The Judge
> > > will deem such rules VALID if they meet the criteria set
> out above,
> > > and any rule found guilty of defamation will have its
> ruling changed
> > > to INVALID as punishment.  At the Judge's discretion,
> > > Style/Reputation points may also be adjusted as a further
> penalty or
> > > compensation for harm.
>
> The Judge has belatedly realized that in his concern over
> whether the second half of the second sentence of the last
> paragraph is or is not consistent with the ROs, he has
> overlooked a problem with the first half.  Namely: This rule
> attempts to redefine the criteria by which a rule is
> *initially* declared VALID, and that *is* inconsistent with RO6.
>
> I therefore change my judgement; 185.1 is INVALID, and loses
> a style point for its invalidity.
>
> The Judge, fortunately, is not subject to style points.
>
> --
> - Rich Holmes
>   Syracuse, NY
>
> --
> Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:31:28 GMT
>
>

--
Rule Date: 2002-05-30 14:47:25 GMT


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