From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 13:02:01 PDT
"Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com> writes:
> It has come to the attention of the FRC Oversight Committee that recent
> rounds have contained an inordinate number of errors, ranging from the
> merely grammatical to errors in judgement. For example, use of the
> non-word "proceedure" and an ill-advised pun on the name of the current
> pontiff and an obscure Texas Libertarian politician were both committed
> in the previous round. Therefore, all FRC members are enjoined to take
> corrective action whenever they discern an error committed by another
> member of the FRC.
>
> However, FRC members are advised to remain cautious of committing
> slander, libel, or defamation. Please bear in mind the three criteria
> for defamation:
>
> 1) The statement must be untrue,
> 2) The statement must be communicated to a third party, and
> 3) The statement must be demonstrably harmful to the reputation of the
> victim.
>
> For the purposes of this round, a player's total accumulated Style
> points in the round will be considered a reflection of eir Reputation.
>
> Players may submit Rules claiming damages for defamation. The Judge
> will deem such rules VALID if they meet the criteria set out above, and
> any rule found guilty of defamation will have its ruling changed to
> INVALID as punishment. At the Judge's discretion, Style/Reputation
> points may also be adjusted as a further penalty or compensation for
> harm.
JUDGEMENT: Immediately we are thrown into a thorny issue. The last
paragraph of this rule allows and requires the Judge under certain
circumstances to declare a rule that is consistent with itself,
previously posted valid fantasy rules, and the regular ordinances
INVALID -- an action which at first seems to be forbidden by RO6:
If a fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself, previously posted
valid fantasy rules, or the regular ordinances, then the Judge
shall declare that rule invalid or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall
declare it valid.
But on more careful thought, this is not the correct analysis. 185:1
does not permit or require such contrary-to-RO6 judgements to be made
*initially*; it merely requires judgements made according to RO6 to be
*changed*. And as I read RO6, it regulates only the Judge's immediate
judgement of a rule; it does *not* forbid that judgement to be changed
at a later date based on different criteria. (If RO6 had read
"... then that rule shall be considered invalid or unsuccessful,
otherwise it shall be considered valid", that would be a different
story. But if I declare a rule VALID and then change that ruling to
INVALID, for arbitrary reasons, that does not alter the fact that I
have, in accordance with RO6, declared that rule VALID.) Nor do any
of the other ROs constrain the criteria for a change of judgement.
So then the only remaining question is, do the ROs allow a judge to
change eir judgement at all? Of course if 185:D passes then such
authority will exist; but 185:D has not passed, and 185.1 must be
judged on the basis of the ROs and override proposals in effect at the
time of its submission. (Jonathan seems to want it judged under the
assumption that 185:D will pass, but I do not believe that would be
legal.)
The proposer emself, as well as another player, have argued that the
ROs implictly forbid such judgement changes; I have already responded
to those arguments, explaining why I do not find them convincing.
Furthermore, I note that judges have claimed and used the authority to
change judgements and style awards in the past.
I therefore find this rule VALID.
STYLE: Not only does this proposal have great potential to establish
the suggested theme, it also scores big (if unintentionally) for
exploiting a hitherto unnoticed RO loophole. It would have scored a
+3.0 had it not been a little on the long side.
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-05-28 20:02:12 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST