From: Bor Onx (boronx_at_yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 14:30:42 PST
Sorry if this is a duplicate. First one bounced. > 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. That's what I was aiming for. Does this go too far? I was hoping it would not be too easy to come up with valid rules. As the number of contradictory fantasy rules start to pile up, maybe it will become hard to contradict all of them. I read the rule to imply that all fantasy rules must be contradicted, but not all of the ROs need to be contradicted. Here is my resubmission of the proposal, and I'll vote for it if I can, because I don't see a way to get people to contradict the ROs using a fantasy rule. Proposal 230:1 For the duration of round 230, replace Regular Ordinance 6. (not including 6a or 6b) with the following Regular Ordinance 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. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST