Re: discussed rule changes

[Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

I think that the answer is both "yes" and "no".  
The problem that has already occurred is that the list is only for
discussion, and no decision making actually takes place.  If I am not
mistaken this is part of what made Kris decide to have little to do with
the list a while back.

However, if real, intelligent, and thoughtful work goes on and a consensus
is reached on the list (obviously excluding senior gms)  then the senior
setting coordinating gms would be stupid to ignore the decision.

Quick question, Steve, as a setting coordinator, shouldn't you have access
to certain decision making?  Aren't you more consequential that Lyle?
Hmmm...

So, it is our job to use this list effectively, instead of bickering, so
that Dan and who he chooses have no choice but to agree with good,
correct, and useful conclusions.  Beyond this, I don't think we are of any
consequence.  

What we should do for the time being is work on standardizing presidents
and pseudo-rulings so that Dan can put all of them in an errata.  This is
important given his recent statement about not using anything but book
rules.  Gms are also the ones that employ precident, and it is our job to
inform him of previous precident to make sure that it is considered and
decisively included or excluded.


By the way, have a nice day

Jevan


On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Steve Ames wrote:

> 
> Question. I woke up this morning and it occurred to me that something
> got said at last nights game that I disagree with. didn't occur to
> me at the time because I was prepping my game.
> 
> Did Dan say that alternate local rules will be discussed and 
> adjudicated by Wright and himself? Thats what I think I heard. And
> that perplexed me because I thought that the local rules were going
> to be ratified by a consensus of GMs not by a couple of individuals.
> 
> Did I hear wrong or was I wrong about the local rules concept?
> 
> 					-Steve
>