Re: frc: proposal

From: Ed Murphy (emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com)
Date: Sat Dec 18 2004 - 23:50:59 PST


Bor Onx <boronx_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I'd like to announce my intention to join the FRC with
> > a proposal to replace RO 6 (but not 6a and 6b) with
> > the following for the length of this round:
> > 
> > 6.  Judge.  The Judge is responsible for interpreting
> > the ordinances and determining the validity of fantasy
> > rules. If a fantasy rule is consistent 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 vote for this proposal.

David Nicol wrote:

> what would this mean? I don't see a difference.

The conditions for validity are precisely reversed.  To be
valid, a fantasy rule *must* contradict itself, previous
valid fantasy rules, and/or the ROs.


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