From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 00:37:56 PST
I vote against this proposal. On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Aron Wall wrote: > 201:C > >>>>>>> > For this round only R.O. 6 shall be modified with respect to the > criteria for judging rules: > > 1) A rule shall be judged valid if it is consistent with itself, the > Regular Ordinances, and at least one rule from every minimal set of > previous valid rules that the most recent previous valid rule is > inconsistent with, and inconsistent with every maximal set of previous > valid rules that the most recent previous valid rule is consistent with. > > 2) If no previous rule is valid, a rule needs only to be consistent with > itself and the Regular Ordinances to be judged valid. > > Otherwise it shall be judged invalid or unsuccessful. > > 3) A rule may only be judged unsuccessful if it is only not valid only > due to the existence of one or more rules for which it is reasonable to > believe that the poster did not see the rule(s). > >>>>>>> > > I vote FOR. > > Aron Wall -- Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) -- Rule Date: 2003-01-24 08:38:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST