Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Resubmission with Corrections

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

A follow-up question to this is which standards we should follow.
Additionally, i realized that I think this is invalid because I
thought that I was following the evidence rule by referencing previous
arguments, but I realized that it said that I must "include" evidence,
which I don't believe such a reference fulfills, but I am also unsure
of whether a link counts as inclusion.
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:10 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 21:05 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > The invalid one was the one that I was referencing. As for why I think
> > ti can be done after-the-fact, I think that it is different because so
> > far, it has been fulfilled outside of the arguments in a preface, so I
> > either think that it should be accepted in this after-the-fact form or
> > any rule, which only referenced in a preface should also be marked
> > invalid. What are your thoughts on that? Additionally, I made the
> > classification, prior to receiving the message from ais523.
>
> Out of interest, does anyone know what Nomic World's status on arguing
> technicalities of the rules was?
>
> This conversation reminded me that the position on technicalities is
> one of the most obvious defining differences between Agora and the FRC
> (in Agora we rather revel in them and try to close loopholes, in the
> FRC there's a big split in the playerbase about how valid abusing a
> technicality is, with some players believing that a rule can imply
> things that it doesn't say and thus contradicting even an implied
> restriction can cause a rule's invalidity).
>
> --
> ais523