Rule 283:2

[Ouroboros]

Godmershy House is a large mansion on the edge of the forest behind
the abandonded churchyard.

Mr.Bingley is the occupant of Netherfield Park.

Each Rule shall name a country estate.

Each Rule shall name a resident of the township. The person so named
need not be the occupant of the estate named. However in the corpus of
the Round each estate must have only one occupant. A rule that
violates this stricture cannot be valid.

This rule is the possession of Mr.Bennet, who is, at this juncture,
living and in fighting trim.

[jug...@gmail.com]

This rule is INVALID because it does not declare itself to be the
rightful propoerty of any one's cadaver. The statement at the end of
the rule, is insufficient because it only declares "possession" - not
at all the same thing as rightful ownership. Even were I to equate
possession with rightful ownership, I cannot deem Mr. Bennet, a person
alive, to qualify as "some one or other of their cadavers". I agree
that Mr. Bennet qualifies as "someone", but on reflection I cannot
square that with the aparent intention of Rule 283:1.

Regarding style: I award 1 point for advancement of the theme and 1
point for a nice set of interesting and very clear restrictions.
Normally I deduct a whole point for invalidity but I reduced that
penalty to account for the ambiguity in the restriction which the rule
ultimately violated.

Joshua Bearden F.R.C.J.

[Sean Hunt]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, jug...@gmail.com <jug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This rule is INVALID because it does not declare itself to be the
> rightful propoerty of any one's cadaver. The statement at the end of
> the rule, is insufficient because it only declares "possession" - not
> at all the same thing as rightful ownership. Even were I to equate
> possession with rightful ownership, I cannot deem Mr. Bennet, a person
> alive, to qualify as "some one or other of their cadavers". I agree
> that Mr. Bennet qualifies as "someone", but on reflection I cannot
> square that with the aparent intention of Rule 283:1.
>
> Regarding style: I award 1 point for advancement of the theme and 1
> point for a nice set of interesting and very clear restrictions.
> Normally I deduct a whole point for invalidity but I reduced that
> penalty to account for the ambiguity in the restriction which the rule
> ultimately violated.
>
> Joshua Bearden F.R.C.J.

I believe you have already declared Rule 283:2 valid because it has
been more than six days, as per the Regular Ordinances.