Subject: Re: MN: Re: Game 4 Buzz on miKi.

From: kenningd@w... (L'homme a tete de choux)
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:55:03 +0100

>Fair enough. [spins the bottle] The Referee for this Buzz shall be dave.

Well, I'm tempted to give it to miKi for manipulating a flawed rule to eir
benefit in true nomic style but on the other hand the precedent has already
been set with regard to interpreting the Straddle Rule, so I have no option but
to uphold the Buzz.

I think perhaps we could do with an archive of judgments, so that any repeated
queries over interpretation can be solved at a stroke.

dave

---

From: Richard Brockie <R.Brockie@r...>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:12:57 +0100 (BST)

> queries over interpretation can be solved at a stroke.

I was not aware that such a test of the rule has already been made. I
think that the speaker should have executive powers to bring the wording
of a disputed rule into line with the judge's ruling in such a case.

The evolution in definition of the Player's and Piece's move have caused
the altering of the definition of a Straddle. As I see it, we should
interpret the rules as they are, not as someone remembers them to be. I
thought that was the whole idea of having them in a central place with
adendments taking effect at a specified time? 

I raise a point of order to the effect that the Judge's ruling is invalid. 
It should be based on interpretation of the rules, as currently written. 

--- miKi