Re: 169:A

From: Anton Cox (
Date: Wed Oct 03 2001 - 02:33:05 PDT

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Gallivanting Tripper wrote:

> I vote against 165:A, because what went on 4 rounds ago is nobody's
> business.

That is a shame - I was quite looking forward to Aron persuading
everyone to vote on an irrelevant proposal (especially one which had
both the round and the rule number incorrect!).

>                                ... 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.

[... and for the judge to renumber rules, though I cant find that
round on the webpages as I write this.]

> They all share a precedent for monotone increasing numbering.
> What I don't want to see is precedent for identically numbered rules.

I dont like identically numbered rules, but I have to say that Aron's
point seems reasonable. His rule was numbered 169:14, even though
there was such a numbered rule already. I wouldnt care to see this
happen often - but I claim that in most rounds it does not matter if
the judge renumbers rules, proposals etc. (Rules dont generally refer
to rule numbers.) So just for this round, to have two rules with the
same number would seem OK to me.

However, I see in Aron's rule that he notes

   By the way, I still don't understand why the number of turns taken
   listed on the side of the board for the Judge started at 43, and keeps
   going down by one each time any of the rest of us make a move.

My copy of the board does not have any such list. Since this copy was
sent out *in* a rule it does have game status - so I dont see how Aron
can claim that it started out in the form he describes.

For this reason I am not going to vote for (either) proposal just yet.

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

I am not sure about unorthodox. If Aron did not receive the earlier
rule - or rather if the judge can reasonably assume this from the
rule that he posts -  then his rule should be unsuccessful.

     Best Wishes,


Rule Date: 2001-10-03 09:32:28 GMT

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