rules that reinterpret past rules

From: Mary K. Kuhner (
Date: Tue Mar 26 2002 - 06:49:56 PST

rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu (Richard S. Holmes) writes:

>So it would be possible, then, to
>nullify any inconvenient restriction imposed by a previous rule.  If
>that's not contrary to the letter of the ROs, it's certainly contrary
>to the spirit.  Hence, if the ROs really permit rules like 179:2, then
>the ROs probably ought to be fixed.

I think rules like this may (in other rounds, not necessarily
this one!) be considered the same way as blatantly round-ending
rules such as "All future rules are invalid."  They are legal, but
so unstylish that people won't tend to do them unless they can
find a clever and appealing excuse.  (FRC as Mornington Crescent.)

Fixing the ROs to stop this will probably complicate them inordinately.

Storm (Mary K. Kuhner

Rule Date: 2002-03-26 14:50:37 GMT

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