From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 12:19:17 PDT
Glenn Overby II <guardcaptain_at_earthlink.net> writes: > Aron Wall writes: > > >But my rule *was* evenly-numbered, with a 14. I don't see why that isn't just as > >good (and a more literal) interpretation as the nth fantasy rule. ... > However, the past precedents of the Committee, at least as far as I've read them > (no, I did not go back and read 100 rounds of archives in the last few minutes!), > support consecutive numbering of rules in the order of posting. I realize that I'm > the one who suggested earlier today that common sense doesn't have a whole lot > to do with FRC, but in this case precedent and common sense (and my ruling) go > hand-in-hand. I stand by the ruling of UNSUCCESSFUL. I have to side with Aron on this one. FRC custom is that consistency with *any* reasonable and consistent interpretation of the rules is all that's required. Since rule numbering is not addressed by the RO's, there is no reason a player may not assign an out-of-sequence number to eir rule, and no reason to insist 169:11's use of "odd-numbered" must refer to the number which would have been assigned if consecutive numbers had been used, rather than to the number the player in fact used. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2001-10-02 19:20:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST