Re: 205:1

From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:24:11 PST


On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Steve Gardner wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Karl Low wrote:
> 
> > Not to horn in on the judge on eir first time or anything, but this
> > rule seems to me to be inconsistent with the R.O's
> 
> Why, Karl?
> 
> The Judge will now hear arguments.

Well, not being Karl, I don't know his exact reason why. However, being
the rule's author, I have a vested interest in figuring out Karl's
objection, and submitting my own arguments. I imagine the culprit here is
RO #6:

6.  Judge.  The Judge is responsible for interpreting the ordinances and
    determining the validity of fantasy rules. If a fantasy rule is
    inconsistent with itself, previously posted valid fantasy rules, or
    the regular ordinances, then the Judge shall declare that rule invalid
    or unsuccesful, otherwise e shall declare it valid.

I guess there could be a potential conflict with how my 205:1 tries to
regulate how inconsistencies between fantasy rules are handled. In
particular, I specify that under certain circumstances, certain
inconsistencies within the fantasy rules can be ignored. Basically, my
rule can be thought of as introducing a refined definition for
inconsistencies. Specifically, I introduce a mechanism where some
inconsistencies are not treated as inconsistencies for the purpose of RO #
6.

Nowhere in my rule do I attempt to change the judging process as specified
by RO #6. I do provide a more refined version, or interpretation, of
inconsistent, but the ROs don't provide a definition for inconsistent
themselves. The interpretation of inconsistent has generally been left up
to the Judge. I feel that there is also room for fantasy rules themselves
to specify how inconsistent can be interpreted.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

-- 
Rule Date: 2003-03-20 00:24:35 GMT


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