From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 18:27:28 PST
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tieka wrote: > on 11/19/02 8:20 PM, Steve Gardner at gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tieka wrote: > > > >> on 11/15/02 11:07 AM, Jonathan David Amery at jdamery_at_ysolde.ucam.org wrote: > >> > >>> '85 was the best round. Stopping FRC > >>> getting murdered is something we > >>> appreciated. All rules must give a > >>> measure that will help defend the FRC. > >>> Alas the FRC dies...' -- The Tablets. > >> > >> Short. Lines short and number words is less. > >> Eulogy good. Save FRC. Remember past. > >> Tablets. No Fantasy. 3 days old=VALID. > >> Judge happy. Style +3 > > > > What about the restriction in 196:9 - that each eulogy recall the deeds > > of some past FRC player, now departed? > > The rule became valid by default, so the requirement for a past player does > not apply. I have posted Summary 2 which gives the new eligible dates. I'm confused. If I understand Rule 8 below correctly, Rule 196:9 did not become valid by default (since you did declare a judgement about it), but by proposal. > From the FRC rules: > > 8. Restrictions on Judge's Power. The decision of the Judge may be > changed if a proposal is made to do so and that proposal > receives a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting on > that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that > proposal. > > Default. If the Judge does not declare judgment of a fantasy > rule within three (3) days after its posting, e shall be > considered then to have decided and declared that rule valid. -- Steve Gardner | Each writer creates their own School of Computer Science | precursors. and Software Engineering | gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au | -- Jorge Luis Borges -- Rule Date: 2002-11-20 02:32:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST