From: Karl Low (kwil_at_gmx.net)
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 12:36:56 PDT
I disagree. All that 185.5 specifies is that future rules shall be INVALID, as there is no VALID rule that could be consistent with it. It then goes on to say that the Judge may declare them VALID later - now, if you argue that the Judge being able to change eir decision without resort to a proposal is not allowed (which is what the earlier discussion was about), then it's inconsistent with RO6, however that being the case, it would imply that 185.1 is still VALID since no proposal was made to alter the Judge's initial decision. (And what that does to the remainder of this round might be interesting) If, on the other hand, you contend the Judge does have the power to change eir ruling then 185.5 is not inconsistent with the Judges interpretation of the R.O's at all, and is therefore VALID. Now, whether the Judge actually *can* change eir decision and remain within the R.O's and the Fantasy Rules is another issue entirely - the power to do something does not necessarily mean it can legally be done. Karl 30/05/02 1:00:57 PM, rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu (Richard S. Holmes) wrote: >Perhaps my ruling was not sufficiently clear. The inconsistency is >not between 185:5 and some future rule; the inconsistency is between >185:5 and the ROs, because 185:5 in combination with the ROs requires >that future rules, in order to be declared VALID, must be declared >INVALID. > >-- >- Rich Holmes > Syracuse, NY > >-- >Rule Date: 2002-05-30 19:01:29 GMT > > > ------- Karl Low Student Research Assistant - Virtual Helpdesk Athabasca University, Athabasca AB direct e-mail: kwil_at_gmx.net ------- -- Rule Date: 2002-05-30 19:37:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST