From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 00:40:13 PST
Since 201.C is already taken, this must be 201.D. In any case, I vote against it. On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, James Willson wrote: > eh, why not > > Overrule proposal 201.C: > > For the duration of round 201, R.O. 6 and 6a shall be replaced with the > following: > > 6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances > and determining the validity of fantasy rules. The Judge shall > declare a fantasy rule invalid or unsuccesful if any of the > following criteria are met: > > a. The fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself > > > > c. The fantasy rule is inconsistent with more than half of > previous valid fantasy rules > > c. One or more valid fantasy rules have been previously posted, > and there is no set of rules consisting of the regular ordinances, > the fantasy rule, and all but one of the previously posted valid > fantasy rules which is consistent. > > Otherwise e shall declare that rule valid. > > 6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if it meets any of > the criteria above, but would not meet any of the criteria above > if it were not for the presence of any previously posted fantasy > rules for which it is reasonable to assume that the poster of the > rule had not seen them before e posted the rule. > > I vote FOR this proposal. -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) -- Rule Date: 2003-01-24 08:40:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST