Author Topic: Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?  (Read 2701 times)

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?
« on: January 14, 2012, 02:19:02 AM »
I would like to see Rules that pertain to specific subject retain the same number. The Rule could be amended by adding part a or b like we did with TDA Rule # 8 recently, or, we could add to a rule as follows; # 41, 41.1, or 41.2 etc.

 If we cover all of the situational categories for poker, it should not be much of a problem to keep them consistant. Rule # 1 is known by everyone, beyond that it depends on which version you are looking at. If you look back on the Discussion Forum to check prior posts on any subject, you will be lost. In 2009 Methods of Raising and Raises were #'s 30 & 31, now they are #'s 36 & 37 ::) If you combine threads on raises (TDA Rule #37) with anything written on the subject on the Forum, you will have to go back and look at TDA Rule # 31, from 2009?

 Recently, members were talking about TDA Rule #41 Accepted Action, but were all referring to it as #42, which is about Pot Size & Pot-Limit Bets. I realize that most members would pick up on that mistake, but I can also see the confusion that it could create for others.

Your thoughts are what I'm looking for.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 09:02:29 PM by MikeB »

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2012, 04:48:16 PM »
Nick:

At the 2009 Summit, there was a lot of interest in organizing the rules by general subject/topic.  I don't remember exactly who took it on (I think it was Mike B), but version 1 of 2009 rules and each issue since have been organized by broad subject.  That said, I don't see any possible way to maintain existing rule numbers and retain said organization OTHER (don't even bother DCJ001) than to have section or group identifiers and then rule numbers under each section/group starting with Section A, Rule 1, Section A, Rule 2, Section B, Rule 1, Section B, Rule 2, etc. 

Unless the above or something similar is done, there just isn't any way that I can think of to maintain some semblance of structure.  Even then if a rule is combined with another or just dropped entirely, the rule numbers that follow in that section will have to change the next time (assuming a new rule is not promulgated to replace it).

If you can come up with an alternative, I am sure the BOD will be more than happy to consider it.

Chet

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2012, 05:18:37 PM »
Chet,
 Thanks for sharing that information. I was not at that summit in 2009, in fact I wasn't even a member back then. I still think some kind of change would be helpful.
I am considering going back on my prior posts and correcting them to the related topics. I think Mike B could come up with a way to at least change the Topic Summary:
Something like...Questions about TDA Rule #37 (formerly #31). Your suggestion about section or group identifiers and then using rule numbers under each section is exactly what we need.

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2012, 07:05:35 PM »
I think it is more important for all members to have the most up to date rules. If people are asking questions about a rule that is no longer valid then that may defeat the purpose of the post to begin with. It is not hard to find the most up to date rules on the forum or on the main site. Isn't this common sense?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2012, 08:14:30 PM »
Spence,
 I think you might be missing my point. If you want to look back and follow any discusion on raises (for example) you need to know what the numbers were before they  changed after the recent summit. The rule for Raises was #31, now it's #37 and after the next summit it will probably change again. My suggestion is to find a way to keep the number the same, that's all. The rule hasn't changed, only the number, got it?

Wow! check-out the post # 1111 (four aces in our old paycheck pool). It might be a lucky day.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:18:58 PM by Nick C »

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Why can't we keep rule numbers consistant?
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2012, 11:36:55 PM »
I meant the reply to address the fact that a person came asking about the rule number change and did not have the most up to date rules. You're correct that subsections and better defined groupings would make sense and give our rules more cohesion. It wouldn't be difficult to use the FIDPA rules as a template for what we want to accomplish as well.