Re: 205:1

From: Karl Low (
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 16:48:12 PST

The key phrase from your initial rule is this:

Doing so allows the source Rule to ignore any of the restrictions found in 
the target Rule as
well as specify restrictions or logic that are inconsistent with the target 

You thus say that the source rule can be inconsistent with the target rule, 
you have previously identified the target rule as a rule previous to the 
source rule. RO#6, as you point out, specifically says "inconsistent with 
... previously posted valid fantasy rules".

Your rule is thus attempting to overrule the ROs, saying that inconsistency 
is allowed, when the RO's quite specifically say it is not.


On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:24:11 -0800 (PST), Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) 
<> wrote:

> 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.

Rule Date: 2003-03-20 00:48:10 GMT

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