From: Andre Engels (engels_at_uni-koblenz.de)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 08:28:36 PST
On 23 Jan 2003, Richard S. Holmes wrote: > > "The > > > Paraconsistent Round". (Make of this what you will) > > "para- _prefix_ ... 3. a : faulty : abnormal <paresthesia> b : > associated in a subsidiary or accessory capacity <paramedical> c : > closely resembling : almost <aratyphoid>" > > Overrule proposal 201.A: > > For the duration of round 201, R.O. 6 and 6a shall be replaced with > the following: > > 6. Judge. The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances > and determining the validity of fantasy rules. If a fantasy rule > is inconsistent with the regular ordinances or with fewer or > greater than one member of the set consisting of itself and all > previously posted valid fantasy rules, then the Judge shall > declare that rule invalid or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall > declare it valid. > > 6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if it is > inconsistent with more than one rule, and any of the rules it is > inconsistent with are other fantasy rules for which it is > reasonable to assume that the poster of the rule had not seen them > before e posted the rule. > > I vote FOR this proposal. I vote AGAINST this proposal, because I think it can lead to ill-defined situations. What do we do when Rule A+B, rule B+C and rule A+C are all consistent, but rule A+B+C is inconsistent? Also, the first rule must (that much is clear) be inconsistent. But if the first rule is in itself inconsistent, does that not also mean that every other rule is inconsistent with it? Andre -- Rule Date: 2003-01-23 16:28:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST