From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 10:19:14 PST
Karl Low <kwil_at_gmx.net> writes: > Oddly, I believe both rules must be invalid. The reason being is this line: > > > So here's the deal: from here on in, > > anecdotes submitted for round 221, starting with this one, have to be > > posted twice. The moral is, don't taunt the mentally ill: they have > > more free time than you. > > At the time he posted 221 e(1 of 2), please tell me where, exactly, is the > second posting? > My reasoning is that at the time of posting 1 of 2, the second posting > does not yet exist, hence posting 1 is invalid. I don't buy this. 221:e (1 of 2) doesn't require all future anecdotes to have been posted twice *at the time the one under judgement is posted* -- only that they be posted twice *at some time in the round.* I take the viewpoint that rules are valid or invalid, but their validity may not always be determinable immediately. At the time of posting 221:e (1 of 2), it had not been posted twice, and at that moment it could not have been judged valid; but it could not have been judged invalid, either, until the end of the round, and then only if it had not been posted again. Of course, after 3 days, it would be designated valid by default. In actuality it *was* posted again, at which point it could be judged valid. > But if 1 is invalid, perhaps 2 can then be valid, as 2 would be starting > it, and there would be a second posting already in existance. > > However, by R.O. 6: > If a fantasy rule is > inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or > the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid > or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid. > > > 221 e(2 of 2) is inconsistent with itself and previously posted VALID > fantasy rules, since 1 of 2 is invalid, so does not count. Hence, 2 of 2 > is also invalid. I am not sure what you're arguing here: 221:e (2 of 2) is invalid because it's identical to a previous invalid rule? Surely not; their contexts differ. Analogously: Rule 1: This rule is even numbered. Rule 2: This rule is even numbered. Rule 1 is invalid, rule 2 is not. Likewise, 221:e (2 of 2) was posted in a context in which an identical anecdote had already been posted; 221:e (1 of 2) was not. Or are you arguing 221:e (2 of 2) is invalid because it fails to meet its own restriction (the first posting being invalid)? I disagree. 221:e does not require anecdotes to be *judged valid* twice -- only that they be *posted* twice. So even if we grant that 221:e (1 of 2) is invalid, 221:e (2 of 2) can be valid since the anecdote has indeed been posted twice. (I might buy the argument if the word "rule" had been used, since by tradition a posting is not a rule unless it is valid, though this tradition is not upheld in the ROs. But 221:e (1 of 2) certainly is an anecdote, whether it's a rule or not.) So if 221:e (1 of 2) is invalid, I believe 221:e (2 of 2) is valid -- with nearly identical consequences, except for a slight change in the duration of david's elegibility. However, as stated, I believe your argument for invalidating 221:e (1 of 2) is flawed. -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST