From: Stephen Turner (sret1_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 02:59:42 PST
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Ed Murphy wrote: > 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. > I vote AGAINST this proposal. It actually says that to be valid the rule must contradict itself, previously posted rules *and* the regular ordinances, which I don't think was what was meant. Actually, I would vote against it anyway. It would make it too easy to make valid rules just by saying two contradictory things. -- Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UK http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/ "Low Priced Cambridge Clare College. Big selection at eBay UK!" (Ad after Google search for Clare College Cambridge)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST