From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 05:19:48 PST
James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> writes: I vote AGAINST. > 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 > > > > c. The fantasy rule is inconsistent with more than half of > previous valid fantasy rules > > c. One or more valid fantasy rules have been previously posted, > and there is no set of rules consisting of the regular ordinances, > the fantasy rule, and all but one of the previously posted valid > fantasy rules which is consistent. > > 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. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus.yahoo.com > > -- > Rule Date: 2003-01-24 06:43:44 GMT > -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2003-01-24 13:20:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST