From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 05:17:11 PST
I vote AGAINST, on the grounds that I don't have the foggiest idea what it means. "Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)" <jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com> writes: > 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 > -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2003-01-24 13:17:51 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST