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