From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Mon Jun 03 2002 - 09:24:01 PDT
"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> writes:
> Also interesting is 185.7, which makes the consistency (and thus validity)
> of future rules dependent on a Judge-determined property (Style), rather
> than on an author-determined property (textual content) as is typical. I
> suppose this is permitted. It doesn't contradict the ROs, either:
>
> a) The ROs allow any Style from -3 to 3, inclusive. 185.7 allows
> non-negative Style, but makes the future rule invalid as a result.
>
> b) The ROs require the Judge to make a correct Judgement - but does
> requirement imply permission?
We reach the same conclusion by different roads. The text is
...any future rule they do post can only be VALID if the style
points awarded for that rule are negative.
and I take "if" in its strictly Boolean sense, i.e. "A if B" is true
if and only if (B is false) or (B is true and A is true). In this
interpretation no causal dependence is required: the restriction is
obeyed for any rule which is not both VALID and possessed of positive
style.
As I see it, requirement implies permission, and 185.7 would have been
inconsistent with the ROs if had required me to make judgements
depending on anything other than consistency, but it did not do so.
> Could a rule stating "The Judge
> may not make a Judgement on this rule" be valid? If it were,
> then presumably it would be deemed valid by timeout.
I would instantly invalidate such a rule on grounds of inconsistency
with RO6:
If a fantasy rule is inconsistent ... then the Judge shall declare
that rule invalid or unsuccessful, otherwise e shall declare it
valid.
Note, not "may" or "should" but "shall".
--
- Rich Holmes
Syracuse, NY
--
Rule Date: 2002-06-03 16:24:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST