Re: A Judges Commentary for 196

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 19:04:40 PST


"Tieka" <cmhuston_at_mts.net> wrote:

> 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.

196:1 says "Each future rule shall X".  I believe this construction is
traditionally interpreted as a requirement, not just a suggestion.

196:2 says "If X, then Y".  This is not a requirement, except in the sense
that the Regular Ordinances would invalidate any rule claiming "X and not-Y".

196:3 says "I recommend that we should X".  This is not a requirement, either.

> 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.

No, it doesn't become part of the Ordinances (unless a Proposal to that
effect is adopted).  Failure to follow theme generally incurs a Style penalty,
but is not grounds for invalidation.


--
Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com>          "I'm not sure I can go through
http://members.fortunecity.com/emurphy/      with it.  Leave, I mean."

--
Rule Date: 2002-11-13 03:09:19 GMT


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