I think you yourself are a bit against my position, but at the moment I agree with Ned, the outcome is silly.
I think you missed the point. And it is not the referree we are talking about. (that will be hard to find). When a group of guys and gals get together for some sort of pickup game the rules are agreed to by all the players before the game starts.
What I meant by my outcome comment was that sometimes you can see that the rules result in universally agreed dumb results. There are electoral systems that can have results that would piss everyone off (like pick everyones second choice -- this would, in the case where 100% of the votes gave a first choice to smith mean he doesn't get in, obviously a dumb rule). If someone can point out such things about rules then we can all agree to change them.
You can't get a referee in until you have agreed to the rules. So let's not worry about that. If the rules are good we may not need a referee anyway.
And it has already been suggested that one side doesn't have to make the rules. Percy put forward some suggested rules. I haven't seen any coherent discussion of exactly what is wrong with them.
For example the specificity rule has been discussed and shown, through the car example, to be necessary. Right?
Common sense isn't
™ Version 4.2
