On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 16:01 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:19 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 12:15 -0700, Dice server wrote:
> >> 19
> > I submit the following proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title="Exilous
> > Monsteredicts", based on rule 2144):
> > {{{{
> > Append the following to the rule entitled "The Monster":
> > {{{
> > Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case
> > alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD
> > assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.
> > }}}
> > }}}}
> >
>
> Not Monsterment?
I'm trying my best to apply the "including grammatical variations"
clause of Rule 2192, which fails in a lot of situations. In this case, I
was reasoning that the salient feature of a judgement is that it is
something that a judge says, with the intention of causing something to
happen. "Monsterment" is meaningless in English as far as I can tell,
and so wouldn't be a correct grammatical variation; however, an 'edict'
seems close to a generalised form of a judgement, therefore
"Monsteredict" seemed to me to be about the closest I could get to
"something a monster says with the intention of causing something to
happen".
--
ais523
