Re: Proposal 201.C . . . ?

From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 05:21:42 PST


James Willson <jkvw3_at_yahoo.com> writes:

My own misguided efforts reminded me of that which I tend to forget,
which is that you get into trouble talking about rule x being
inconsistent with rule y; what you really need to consider is whether
the proposed rule set is inconsistent -- it may be, even if no two
rules are inconsistent with one another.

I therefore 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
> 
>     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.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> 
> -- 
> Rule Date: 2003-01-24 06:44:55 GMT
> 

-- 
- Rich Holmes
  Syracuse, NY

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-01-24 13:22:02 GMT


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