From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jun 01 2002 - 21:13:55 PDT
> JUDGEMENT: We've been down this road before, haven't we? Rule 185.5
> was invalidated because of its "Future rules shall all be INVALID due
> to inconsistancy with this rule" provision. And now we have "ALL
> FUTURE RULES ARE INVALID". I see no reason why one should be VALID
> while the other is not.
>
> Yet there are those who argued 185.5 should have been VALID, and their
> arguments are not without merit.
>
> Then again, no one proposed overturning that judgement, did they?
By itself, that clause from 185.5 would have been effective. All future
rules would have been inconsistent with 185.5, and thus invalid according
to the ROs *and* according to 185.5's clause.
185.5 contradicted the ROs, and itself, by claiming (albeit indirectly)
that consistency doesn't matter.
> STYLE: Since this is INVALID, it may very well have positive style.
> And indeed, this rule goes right through the nadir of unstylishness
> and out the other side; it's so very unstylish, it's the height of
> style. Except, of course, that it loses a style point for being
> INVALID.
Now this, I think, is sufficient grounds to keep 185.9 INVALID. I'd
rather lose a day of eligibility than a pile of Style. Besides, working
up an apology for 185.9 should be... interesting.
Also interesting is 185.7, which makes the consistency (and thus validity)
of future rules dependent on a Judge-determined property (Style), rather
than on an author-determined property (textual content) as is typical. I
suppose this is permitted. It doesn't contradict the ROs, either:
a) The ROs allow any Style from -3 to 3, inclusive. 185.7 allows
non-negative Style, but makes the future rule invalid as a result.
b) The ROs require the Judge to make a correct Judgement - but does
requirement imply permission? Could a rule stating "The Judge
may not make a Judgement on this rule" be valid? If it were,
then presumably it would be deemed valid by timeout.
--
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/ with it. Leave, I mean."
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-02 10:44:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST