From: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 11:09:58 PDT
224:1 - INVALID. This rule contradicts itself. It essentially says "This rule has no effect unless it has an effect." Assume that the content of rule 224:1 is in effect. This contradicts the statement "rule 224:1 will take effect when it is seconded." Assume that the content of rule 224:1 is not in effect. This implicitly contradicts the ROs in that posted rules are assumed to be in effect when they are posted. Assuming the content of a posted rule is in effective has also been our custom. On the other hand, I will grant you the observation that the content of a rule can be separated from its rule. Therefore, if this rule is seconded, I will judge its content to be in effect even though the container rule is invalid. You will still have 1 less day to post another valid rule, in accordance with the ROs. If the content of this rule becomes active, I will judge all "seconds" and "relevant discussion" that do not also contain rules as if they are rules, in accordance with the ROs. Style: +1 on theme +1 almost convincing me this rule was valid. -1 almost convincing me this rule was valid. +1 promotes participation. -1 promotes participation that doesn't include new rules. ----- +1 Total > > One of the benefits of collaboration is that feedback on > new ideas prevents really bad ideas from getting instantiated. > > At one end of the spectrum is consensus with no debate -- the > only things to agree on are the ones obvious to all before any > discussion at all -- at the other end is a vituperative hell where > no-one agrees even though everyone fully understands each others' > points of view. > > In keeping with the theme of "the hive mind," I propose that all > rules in round 224 must be seconded before taking effect. To stop > 224 itself from being hypocritical (that role is reserved for the > Judge)rule 224:1 will take effect when it is seconded by another active > player, giving the committee a chance to forward alternate proposals. > > Seconding, to comply with this edict, includes a paraphrase of the > restrictions imposed by the rule in question, made to the game forum. > > Furthermore, for purposes of keeping active, seconding constitutes play. > > Furthermore, for purposes of keeping proposals, discussion, and > seconding straight, a convention of prefixing numbers and titles > in the subject lines will be followed, (and in case of collisions > the number will be incremented in the later posts as received by > the archive. As if that happens.) Relevant discussion may also > constitute play. > > I thought about declaring that "all valid play must be sent from > e-mail addresses in domains with valid SPF records" but that may be > premature at this point > > > -- David Nicol > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST