From: David Nicol (davidnicol_at_gmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 12:21:55 PST
Ah. I see. Hmmm. The round has not yet begun, and fantasy rules are, by definition valid for this round only. I'm against it too, as it is entirely unnecessary to get the desired effect. Bor, if you restate your proposal as 230:1, it'll be valid, as it is certainly on-theme. I'll certainly be in for a curious time trying to sort out contrarian validity. On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:50:59 +0100 (CET), Ed Murphy <emurphy42_at_socal.rr.com> wrote: > Bor Onx <boronx_at_yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I'd like to announce my intention to join the FRC with > > > a proposal to replace RO 6 (but not 6a and 6b) with > > > the following for the length of this round: > > > > > > 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. > > I vote for this proposal. > > David Nicol wrote: > > > what would this mean? I don't see a difference. > > The conditions for validity are precisely reversed. To be > valid, a fantasy rule *must* contradict itself, previous > valid fantasy rules, and/or the ROs. > > -- David L Nicol Holiday reminder: chocolate is poisonous to dogs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST