From: jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu
Date: Wed May 19 2004 - 09:46:22 PDT
Karl Low sent me a good email that will help me clarify the way I am interpreting (warping?) the ROs with respect to "224:1": From now on, I will judge that any rule that contradicts an INVALID rule that is "in effect" (currently only 224:1) is merely contradicting that rule, and is *not* necessarily INVALID. This should resolve any issues between "224:1" (and any future INVALID seconded rules) and the ROs. What I am attempting to do is separate the "effectivity" of "rule contents" from the "validity" of the "rule". "Effectivity" shall not have an effect on "validity". Contradicting an "effective" rule may or may not have an effect on style points, though. I will not change style points based on retroactive effectivity of rules. Jae > R.O. 6 says that if a rule is not inconsistent with > itself, the R.O.'s, or > previously posted *valid* rules, it must be valid. > Otherwise, it must be > invalid. > > If someone were to post a rule that does not adhere to > 224:2 then, it > would *have* to be judged invalid. To say 224:2 doesn't > have an effect > based on a previously invalid rule is in contravention of > the R.Os.. 224:2 > is valid, therefore other rules have to be consistent with > it. Period. > > > > On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:18:47 +0200 (CEST), > <jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu> wrote: > >> 224:2 VALID +2, no effect! >> What a mess. Ok here is what has happened: >> >> 1) With no previous valid rules, 224:2 is clearly valid. >> 2) 224:1 is now seconded. Although the rule is still >> INVALID, I am going to judge its *content* to be in >> effect >> (as stated in 224:1). This is what I get for allowing >> INVALID rules to have effects :( >> 3) 224:2 now has no effect on the game, because it has >> not >> been seconded. Therefore 224:1 is NOT seconded. >> 4) The ROs state that a rule can only be judged INVALID >> if >> it is inconsistent with a previous VALID rule. I won't >> say that 224:1 is inconsistent with 224:2, but 224:1 is >> not even VALID. >> >> Ok, I am not beneath letting a paradox remain active >> during this round. But for the sake of my single brain, >> I >> am going to interpret the 224:1 clause "rules in round >> 224 >> must be seconded before taking effect" to not provide a >> provision for retracting seconding. 224:1 *was* >> seconded, >> so it is in effect. >> >> 224:1 is invalid *with* an effect >> 224:2 is valid with *no* effect >> >> Ruling: >> VALID >> >> Style: >> +1 Seconds a rule >> +1 On theme: ignorance would be a key to hive >> intelligence. It would get really hard to think if most >> thoughts weren't ignored. >> >> Jae >> >>> I second rule 224:1. >>> >>> However I don't recall reading it. All future rules >>> must >>> claim that >>> their authors are ignorant of previous rules. >>> (Ignorance >>> of course is >>> no excuse for non-compliance.) >>> >> >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST