Re: 205:1

From: Karl Low (kwil_at_gmx.net)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 01:31:09 PST


Not to horn in on the judge on eir first time or anything, but this rule 
seems to me to be inconsistent with the R.O's


On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:57:18 -0800 (PST), Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) 
<jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com> wrote:

> --- Begin 205:1 ---
>
> Ah, what a tangled web of precedence we weave. I shall lay down the first
> strand. All Fantasy Rules in this Round must enact a new mechanism, or
> modify an existing mechanism, for how Fantasy Rules in this Round may 
> take
> precedence over one another.
>
> A Fantasy Rule (the source) may take precedence over one Fantasy Rule 
> (the
> target) already in place by specifying that it does so, and indicating
> which Fantasy Rule it is taking precedence over. Doing so allows the
> source Rule to ignore any of the restrictions found in the target Rule as
> well as specify restrictions or logic that are inconsistent with the
> target Rule. Any inconsistencies created between the source Rule and the
> target Rule are resolved by ignoring the portions of the target Rule that
> are inconsistent with the source Rule for the duration that the source
> Rule takes precedence over the target Rule.
>
> --- End 205:1 ---
>

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-03-19 09:31:23 GMT


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