From: owner-frc-digest To: frc-digest@nvg.unit.no Subject: frc-digest V1 #166 Reply-To: frc Errors-To: owner-frc-digest Precedence: bulk frc-digest Monday, 24 April 1995 Volume 01 : Number 166 Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Susan Devine Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 20:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 This is long, but please read it anyway: On Sat, 22 Apr 1995, WB wrote: > Dave, I was probably going to invalidate your rule anyway on the grounds that > it presents an "exception" to schroedinger's corollary, and according to 34:1, <<>> > This looks like a clear violation of 34:1 to me. I did not cover this in my OK, I can see that, too... Except that your comment PRAISED me for finding the counter-example. > original comments because: > (a) There is no rule in the RO's that states I must declare any > reasons, let alone all of them, for invalidating a rule. True enough. I based my second request on my observation that the judge customarily does include reasons, and if the reasons are invalid then the judgment can be overturned. It just seemed to me that your comments on holding off on 34:8 indicated that this was the only problem you had with 34:7 as well as 34:8. Then you ruled that it was not a problem at all, so I figured 34:7 should be valid too. I DO APOLOGIZE (sincerely!) for the tone of my second request (calling for you to change your ruling). It was not intended to be a criticism of you or your judging. It was simply... well, I'll explain that below. > (b) It seems to me that since there were multiple reasons for invalidating a > rule, one would be sufficient. Again, true enough, but one was all you gave, so it was all I had to work with. That reason was the point I raised in the vote. Any OTHER reasons can come out in the "debate", and if they are compelling, then my call for votes will inevitably fail. > Please do not bother everyone with an additional call for votes. I will not > change my vote, and if anyone has a problem with the current ruling, they have > already had a chance to vote on it. Ok, here's my explanation of what I was trying to do with that second request: Based on the reason you gave, the rule was invalid. I made a call for votes. During the vote you realized that your reason was incorrect, and approved another rule with the same "flaw". My second request was that YOU THE JUDGE declare my rule VALID (retroactively), but STILL AWAITING THE SAME VOTE. I was not calling for another vote. I was asking you to reverse yourself, based on the ONE reason you gave for invalidating my rule. That being said, I understand that there is no provision in the ROs for Judges to reverse themselves. But neither is there a rule against it. Perhaps my request was unorthodox, perhaps improper, but it was certainly not intended to be insulting. If it WAS improper, then I apologize. I truly do. Finally, I didn't realize that calling for votes was "bothering" people. It was my understanding that the game was not just making rules defining something, but rather making rules that follow the rules, and the process of rule-making and rule changing. I thought that discussion and debate and voting were integral parts of the game. Was I wrong? Dave Honsinger ------------------------------ From: "WB" Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 10:58:59 -0400 Subject: Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 On Apr 22, 8:27pm, Susan Devine wrote: > Subject: Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 > > This is long, but please read it anyway: > > > > OK, I can see that, too... Except that your comment PRAISED me for > finding the counter-example. As well you should be. It does not change the validity, though. You might have presented the counter-example in such a way as to adhere to the rules, and I _really_ would have praised you then. =) > > > Please do not bother everyone with an additional call for votes. I will not > > change my vote, and if anyone has a problem with the current ruling, they have > > already had a chance to vote on it. > > Ok, here's my explanation of what I was trying to do with that second > request: Based on the reason you gave, the rule was invalid. I made a > call for votes. During the vote you realized that your reason was > incorrect, and approved another rule with the same "flaw". My second > request was that YOU THE JUDGE declare my rule VALID (retroactively), but > STILL AWAITING THE SAME VOTE. I was not calling for another vote. I was > asking you to reverse yourself, based on the ONE reason you gave for > invalidating my rule. I'd hate to set any kind of precedence that allows for the judge to change his or her mind _without_ the support of other the members of the frc, and in this case, reversing a vote that has already been called for. BTW, the voting time for that proposal had already expired. > Finally, I didn't realize that calling for votes was "bothering" people. > It was my understanding that the game was not just making rules defining > something, but rather making rules that follow the rules, and the process > of rule-making and rule changing. I thought that discussion and debate > and voting were integral parts of the game. Was I wrong? Calling for votes doesn't bother me, but I don't want to vote on the same thing more than once, unless there's (IMHO) a good reason to do so. Sorry if I sounded annoyed. Mike - -- mjhaisma@eos.ncsu.edu +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ |"If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the| |courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something."--Jack Handey| +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: Don Blaheta Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 18:00:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Judgement 34:8 and 34:7 Mike worries: > I'd hate to set any kind of precedence that allows for the judge to change his > or her mind _without_ the support of other the members of the frc, and in this > case, reversing a vote that has already been called for. BTW, the voting time > for that proposal had already expired. Don't worry, you wouldn't be setting it, it was done a couple rounds before you joined. > Mike Vanyel - -=-=-=-Don Blaheta-=-=-=-blahedo@quincy.edu-=-=-=-dblaheta@aol.com-=-=-=- Those who educate children well are more to be honored than parents, for these only gave life, those the art of living well. -- Aristotle ------------------------------ End of frc-digest V1 #166 *************************