Re: Proposal 201.C . . . ?

From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 00:41:19 PST


Since 201.C and 201.D are already taken, this must be 201.E. In any case, 
I vote against it.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, James Willson wrote:

> eh, why not
> 
> Overrule proposal 201.C:
> 
> 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. The Judge shall
>     declare a fantasy rule invalid or unsuccesful if any of the
>     following criteria are met:
> 
>     a. The fantasy rule is inconsistent with itself
> 
>     b. The fantasy rule is inconsistent with the R.O.'s
> 
>     c. The fantasy rule is inconsistent with more than half of
>     previous valid fantasy rules
> 
>     Otherwise e shall declare that rule valid.
> 
> 6a. A fantasy rule can only be declared unsuccesful if it meets any of
>     the criteria above, but would not meet any of the criteria above
>     if it were not for the presence of any previously posted 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.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-01-24 08:41:39 GMT


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