A Judges Commentary for 196

From: Tieka (cmhuston_at_mts.net)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 15:56:21 PST


Wow, this is more activity than the FRC has seen in quite some time. It's
really nice to see fresh blood and see people getting involved.

I realize that there may be some questions regarding my judgements. So I
have decided to explain myself. Note that this is not a normal action for a
Judge, but for the benefit of Sir Toby, it may help explain things a bit.


FRC ordinances specify the actions of the judge in section 6. Basically, the
Judge is responsible for interpreting the rules. From Meriam-Webster a rule
is a regulation governing conduct. Based on this, it is my interpetation
that 196:1-3 do not specify conduct. They contain suggestions, not
requirenments. From my readings of the FRC rules, I can allow future rules
to disobey or ignore a suggestion.

With regards to my ruling on 196:5 and 196:6, I realize that it may be
confusing to people. It is my interpetation that a theme _can_ be enforced,
but does not have to be. In fact, I don't think it has ever been done
before. I belief that by specifying a theme, it becomes part of the
ordinaces, and that since 196:5 & 6 fail to follow the theme, they are in
violation of the ordiances.

I look forward to many more rules/suggestions and the discussion that I'm
sure will follow my commentary.

Tieka,
Judge, Wizard, Stone Mason, Consultant,
and a lot more stuff

--
Rule Date: 2002-11-13 00:57:45 GMT


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