From: Gallivanting Tripper (flix_os_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 00:01:10 PDT

I vote against 165:A, because what went on 4 rounds ago is nobody's
>Aron Wall wrote:
> >
> > -----165:A-------
> > That the rule which the Judge has re-labeled 165:17 but whose author
>labeled it 165:16
> > be declared VALID.
> > ----------------
> >

Nevertheless, I propose 169:A as follows:

That the rule which the Judge has re-labeled 169:15 but whose author labeled
it 169:14 be declared VALID.

Interestingly enough, I vote AGAINST this as well.

Why?  There are lots of different ways to approach this.  I admit there is
nothing in the RO's to even specify that rules have to be numbered at all.
Surely, if they are, it is only for convenience.  There is precedent for
non-integral and algebraic numbers, there is precedent for rules to be
posted without numbers at all, and there is precedent for the judge to
assign numbers to such rules.

They all share a precedent for monotone increasing numbering.

What I don't want to see is precedent for identically numbered rules.
So I am interested in seeing how many the FRCers will delurk to support such
a precedent ;)



PS - I thought the ruling of UNSUCCESSFUL was eminently fair, (although
ultimately harsh) and a good (albeit unorthodox) interpretation of RO 6a

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Rule Date: 2001-10-03 07:01:24 GMT

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