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