============================== CFJ 2413 ==============================
If a high-power rule states that a players SHOULD interpret a
definition in a particular way, and a low-power rule implies that
that particular definition is correct (or at least that all other
alternative definitions are wrong), an interpretation of the
definition other than the one suggested by the high-power rule can
Called by ais523: 14 Mar 2009 17:03:48 GMT
Assigned to woggle: 16 Mar 2009 21:03:05 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by woggle: 19 Mar 2009 04:08:07 GMT
I suspect FALSE on this, and believe it's the flaw in
coppro's attempted scam. The high-powered rule is suggesting that
interpretation A is correct (but interpreting it as B does not break
that rule if you think carefully about it beforehand), the low-powered
rule is flat-out stating that interpretation B is wrong, and they don't
conflict, so both rules affect the situation.
For an even more stark example of this (which may not be directly
applicable), consider a power-3 rule saying "Players MAY A. Players MAY
B.", and a power-1 rule saying "Players MAY NOT B." In this situation, I
believe that B is illegal (although punishments for it would be for
breaking a power-1 rule); Bing does not break the power-3 rule, but does
break the power-1 rule, and the power-3 rule does not make it legal. The
statement of the CfJ is about a more complicated situation with a mix of
SHALLs and CANs.
Judge woggle's Arguments:
It depends on the context in which the definition is being used. If
the definition is being used in a higher-power instrument than either
of the rules in question, then TRUE. If the definition is being used
in a third document alongside a disclaimer about how to interpret it,
then possibly TRUE.
This is FALSE in most practical cases, however.