201:C

From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 04:02:25 PST

• Next message: Joshua: "201:1"
• Previous message: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Proposal Votes"
• Next in thread: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: 201:C"
• Reply: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: 201:C"
• Maybe reply: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 201:C"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

201:C
>>>>>>>
For this round only R.O. 6 shall be modified with respect to the
criteria for judging rules:

1) A rule shall be judged valid if it is consistent with itself, the
Regular Ordinances, and at least one rule from every minimal set of
previous valid rules that the most recent previous valid rule is
inconsistent with, and inconsistent with every maximal set of previous
valid rules that the most recent previous valid rule is consistent with.

2) If no previous rule is valid, a rule needs only to be consistent with
itself and the Regular Ordinances to be judged valid.

Otherwise it shall be judged invalid or unsuccessful.

3) A rule may only be judged unsuccessful if it is only not valid only
due to the existence of one or more rules for which it is reasonable to
believe that the poster did not see the rule(s).
>>>>>>>

I vote FOR.

Aron Wall

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-01-24 00:02:21 GMT

• Next message: Joshua: "201:1"
• Previous message: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Proposal Votes"
• Next in thread: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: 201:C"
• Reply: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: 201:C"
• Maybe reply: Richard S. Holmes: "Re: 201:C"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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