From: Jeremy D. Selengut (selengut_at_nih.gov)
Date: Tue Aug 21 2001 - 07:24:50 PDT
>167:4 > >>> >Rules from now on must contain a phrase of at least six words, indicated >with quotes, that must be used in the following Rule in order for it to be >valid; they will serve to pass on genetic information, something that can't >be done by mules. > >>> > >--David Glasser Judgement: VALID. [Note the following interpretation, Rule N+1, VALID, includes a six word phrase in quotes. Rule N+2, INVALID, does not include a phrase in quotes. What about Rule N+3? If the word "Rule" is interpreted to mean both VALID and INVALID rules, then, since there is no quoted phrase to incorporate from the INVALID Rule N+2, there is no way for N+3 to be VALID. I will, therefore, interpret the word Rule to mean "a VALID rule". There is ample precedent for this point of view, and in fact, I hold that this should be the case as a standard interpretation in the FRC. Consider the alternative: Rule A: Rules must be in English. Rule B: Parlez-vous Francais? Rule B is clearly INVALID, but a strict interpretation of the word Rule as including INVALID rules would suggest that Rule A is INVALID, too, since Rule B is still inconsistent with it. Of course this makes no sense, because rules need not be consistent with rules that come AFTER them, but the logical structure of the game becomes a lot less dicey if INVALID rules just cease to exist as far as the VALID rules are concerned (of course, like I stated in a previous note, except in so far as VALID rules require incorporation of anything in the INVALID rules).] Style: Is a mule an INVALID rule? An interesting concept to build on, perhaps? Otherwise, not much excitement here. With the new player bonus, +1.0. -TWJ -- Rule Date: 2001-08-21 14:25:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST