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