From: Steve Gardner (gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au)
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 18:02:23 PST
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote:
> --- Begin 205:1 ---
>
> Ah, what a tangled web of precedence we weave. I shall lay down the first
> strand. All Fantasy Rules in this Round must enact a new mechanism, or
> modify an existing mechanism, for how Fantasy Rules in this Round may take
> precedence over one another.
>
> A Fantasy Rule (the source) may take precedence over one Fantasy Rule (the
> target) already in place by specifying that it does so, and indicating
> which Fantasy Rule it is taking precedence over. 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 Rule. Any inconsistencies created between the source Rule and the
> target Rule are resolved by ignoring the portions of the target Rule that
> are inconsistent with the source Rule for the duration that the source
> Rule takes precedence over the target Rule.
>
> --- End 205:1 ---
Well, well, a nice juicy argument right up front! What more could a
judge ask for?
Here's Regular Ordinance 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.
Karl argues that 205:1 is inconsistent with RO6, in that it allows the
Judge to declare VALID fantasy rules which are inconsistent with
previously posted valid fantasy rules.
For example, consider two fantasy rules:
(1) P.
(2) not P. This rule takes precedence over (1).
By hypothesis, (2) is inconsistent with (1). According to RO6, the Judge
must judge (2) to be invalid. With 205:1 in force, however, the judge
must judge (2) to be valid. Karl is therefore correct: 205:1 is
inconsistent with RO6 and is therefore INVALID.
In his defence, Sir Toby argues that 205:1 offers a "refined definition
of inconsistencies", according to which "some inconsistencies are not
treated as inconsistencies for the purpose of RO6." Therein lies the
problem for Sir Toby's argument. R205:1 doesn't in fact offer a refined
definition of "inconsistent". Rather it just tries to say that we can
ignore some inconsistencies. This is what brings it into conflict with
R06.
This conclusion, while (IMO) logically compelling, is unfortunate, in
that it makes for boring play. We can hardly have any interesting
precedence tangles if any attempt to take precedence over earlier rules
gets shot down in flames by R06. I shall therefore shortly propose to
alter R06 for the duration of Round 205.
Rule 205:1 INVALID
STYLE for 205:1
+0.5 for getting me involved in a tricky argument straight off the bat.
-1.0 for a rather complicated and 'messy' opening attempt.
----
-0.5 total
Judge Steve
--
Steve Gardner |
School of Computer Science | I've only just realized
and Software Engineering | how self-conscious I am.
gardner_at_sng.its.monash.edu.au |
--
Rule Date: 2003-03-20 02:02:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST