Re: Does a rule have to obey rules posted before it, but validated after it?

From: Jesse Welton (jwelton_at_pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 06:02:28 PDT


Jesse F. W wrote:
>
> Question:
>   Suppose a rule, call it rule A, was posted; then another rule, rule
> B, was posted, which conflicted with rule A.  Then rule A was found
> to be invalid (or unsuccesful, it does not matter).  Would rule B also
> be not valid because of conflicts with rule A, or would rule B then be
> valid(assuming no other problems with it)?

Jeremy gave one answer to this question, and I shall give another.
Actually, it's the same answer, from a slightly different perspective.
In any case, the relevant wording in the Regular Ordinances is from
RO6:

  If a fantasy rule is inconsistent with [...] previously posted valid
  fantasy rules [...] then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid or
  unsuccessful, otherwise e shall declare it valid.

The ROs do not require rules to be consistent with previously posted
invalid rules, so in your example rule B would be valid.[1]  However,
notice that if rule A was found to be valid, rule B must be consistent
with it even though A had not been judged at the time B was posted,
because A is a previously *posted* valid rule.[2]

Players are well advised to look at eash rule and make a personal
judgement as to its validity before submitting a new rule.  There is
nothing, in principle, preventing you from reaching the same
understanding as the Judge.  Sometimes, though, it's easier
(especially for new players) to just try to follow all the
yet-unjudged rules, just in case.  (Or wait for the judgements, but
then you might not find yourself a clear opening.)

-Jesse "Thank Goodness For Middle Initials" L W


Technical notes:

[1] As Jeremy pointed out, the caveat to this is that while the ROs
don't require it, a valid fantasy rule might require rules to be
consistent in some way with previous invalid rules.  It is usually
pretty obvious when this happens.  A rule might, for instance, say,
"Future rules may not use any words of five or more letters used in
a previous invalid rule."

[2] There is some controversy within the committee over the precise
interpretation of this, actually.  The platonic camp believes rules
are valid or invalid in principle, and our job is to track that as
closely as possible.  The pragmatic camp believes that rules only
become valid or invalid when a judgement is made, or a vote decided.
Most of the time, there is no practical difference between the two;
but if a pragmatist ever started judging rules out of order you'd
better believe we'd see some sparks fly.

--
Rule Date: 2001-08-21 13:02:39 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST