From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Thu Nov 14 2002 - 12:02:58 PST
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Leonhard, Christian wrote: > I will, however, vote YES on 196:B (although not for the reason suggested). > As indicated in my vote against 196:A, I do not believe that 196:2 > establishes any requirement to decipher the F'rcyeh tablets (its sole > requirement, in my view, is that rules refer to previous rounds). I do > think, however, that 196:4 fails to fulfill 196:1's requirement that all > rules "suggest a new way to save FRC," and should therefore be invalidated. > > Christian R. Leonhard Also a good point. I believe that was the first problem I had with the judgement for 196:4, I just forgot to bring it up when I hastily drafted proposal 196:B. Thank you for bringing it up. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) -- Rule Date: 2002-11-14 20:10:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST