FRC: Proposal

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