From: Jonathan Van Matre (JVanMatre_at_oslp.com)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 08:16:53 PDT
It has again 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. Any rule found guilty of defamation (as a result of the rule claiming defamation being ruled VALID) 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 from defamation. <non-rule commentary> Well, blimey if I didn't miss one little (but crucial) problem with this the first time around. At least I wasn't the only one who missed it. I gather it's generally considered gauche to resubmit the same rule here, but I'm really interested to see how this plays out, so here's what I hope is a working, valid version. </non-rule commentary> -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 15:18:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST