From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 14:54:54 PDT
"Richard S. Holmes" wrote: Perhaps my ruling was not sufficiently clear. The inconsistency is not between 185:5 and some future rule; the inconsistency is between 185:5 and the ROs, because 185:5 in combination with the ROs requires that future rules, in order to be declared VALID, must be declared INVALID. True. Which is perfectly consistent; all it means is that all future rules must be declared INVALID. If the antecendent is false the consequent is irrelevent. This would make the rule "Valid, Winning, and No Fun", except for the fact that in this round, the Judge can declare rules VALID anyway, even if they are inconsistent. By the way, I hope that your interpretation that the Judge need not consider consistency in making a second judgement on a rule is based on this round's proposal and not just on the R.O.'s. If it is the latter, could you please justify your interpretation based on the R.O.'s? Aron Wall -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 21:54:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST