From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Fri Nov 22 2002 - 08:55:15 PST
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Steve Gardner wrote:
> This raises an interesting question: what if a Rule which is in outright
> contradiction to a previous Rule is declared valid by default? Eg, in
> the current round, one of the restrictions in place is that Rules cannot
> use or mention the word 'Fantasy'. What if a new Rule saying that future
> Rules *must* use or mention the word 'Fantasy' were declared valid by
> default (the only way such a Rule could be declared valid, since it
> violates the earlier requirement)? How could the validity of future
> Rules then be determined (other than by default)? Any future Rule would
> perforce violate one of the restrictions.
>
> Steve
I agree with Rich Holmes on this one. As the Regular Ordinances stand now,
the round would be over. To solve the problem, we'd probably need to add
something like this to the regular ordinances:
If two or more fantasy rules somehow become in conflict with
themselves, only the one fantasy rule of the conflicting fantasy
rules with the lowest rule number remains in effect, the other
remaining conflicting fantasy rules are without force and effect.
--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
--
Rule Date: 2002-11-22 17:04:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST