Index ← 2421 CFJ 2423 2424b → text
==============================  CFJ 2423  ==============================

    Murphy's recent attempt to cause Rule 2223 to amend itself to read
    'This rule intentionally left blank' was using the mechanism
    specified in rule 2223, rather than the mechanism specified in the
    rule created by proposal 6130.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              UNDECIDABLE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       16 Mar 2009 16:39:09 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      23 Mar 2009 16:02:28 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by ehird:            23 Mar 2009 16:23:10 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
{{{
      Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
      that change to be void and without effect.
}}}

========================================================================

Judge ehird's Arguments:

Mu. See below. Er, I can't actually figure out a good judgment to this
one. I think it might actually be...

I judge UNDECIDABLE. Please appeal if there's another suitable judgment.

========================================================================