From: Rich Holmes (rsholmes_at_mailbox.syr.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 29 2005 - 10:31:48 PST
Aron Wall <aron_at_wall.org> writes: > 1) The first sentence clearly implies that the TVRotR will exist. Now, there > is an argument that this is contrary to the RO's. For it might well be that > despite being the theme, the TVRotR is never written. That would leave the > statement as being untrue, and the untruth of the statement would follow from > the RO's, as acting upon the specific circumstance. I will not however take > this interpretation, because: > a) the RO's do allow the TVRotR to exist, and in this respect it is > consistent. Even if it makes a false statement about the round, this concerns > future rules, while it is only required to be consistent with past rules. > b) seeing as the TVRotR is the theme of the round, even if it is never written > one might view it as the "fantasy domain" of the round, about which rules make > statements which are required to be consistent. Of course, this does not > change the fact that if nine VALID rules are submitted, the next rule after > that is required to match up to all the things which have been said about it. > c) the theme naturally draws rules into assuming that the TVRotR exists. It > would be rather tricksy of me to condemn such a natural result of my own > theme. Not to mention the fact that there are rules all the time that say something like "The next rule will explain what Harry was doing", and no one bats an eye. - Rich Holmes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST