From: Orjan Johansen (oerjan_at_nvg.ntnu.no)
Date: Sat Aug 18 2001 - 06:58:16 PDT
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Jesse F. W wrote: > > 6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances > > and > > > > determining the validity of fantasy rules. 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. > > > > 6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if the only rule > > or > > rules it is inconsistent with are other fantasy rules for which it > > is reasonable to assume that the poster of the rule had not seen > > them > > before e posted the rule. > Huh? This rule does not make any sense. It seems to mean that all > rules which are inconsistent with lots of rules, or the RO's or even > themselves, must be valid. I think there is a grammar error in it > somewhere. Note that invalid and unsuccessful are _not_ synonyms. Unsuccesful is a way to be more lenient in some cases. > > [As of now, "Public posting" is posting to the mailing list > > frc_at_troll.no .] [The official time of a post is the time on the "Rule > > Date" timestamp > > appended to that post] > If there is no Rule Date timestamp, is the message timestamp > acceptable? It has been used in the past. The message timestamp is annoying to use if messages are much delayed or if the sender's clock or timezone is wrong, which is presumably why (former?) list admin Arnt implemented the Rule Date timestamp. The Rule Date timestamp is approximately a more user-friendly version of the Received: line for when the message reaches the list software, which has the problem that it can sometimes be awkward to determine, dependent on your technical skill and email reader. Greetings, Ørjan. -- Rule Date: 2001-08-18 13:58:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST