Index ← 2423 CFJ 2424b 2424a → text
============================  Appeal 2424b  ============================


Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               scshunt
Decision:                               AFFIRM

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       07 Apr 2009 23:47:01 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           08 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            08 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT
Assigned to scshunt (panelist):         08 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT
scshunt moves to AFFIRM:                08 Apr 2009 00:27:29 GMT
root moves to REASSIGN:                 08 Apr 2009 00:52:01 GMT
Yally moves to REMAND:                  15 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                15 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT

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

Panelist scshunt's Arguments:

CFJ 2423 and empirical evidence show that there is clearly an ambiguity
in the specification of Murphy's rule change, as the method of the rule
change was unclear. Rule 105 states that {Any ambiguity in the
specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without
effect.} The text is clear enough - any ambiguity, no matter how small,
is sufficient to nullify a rules change. This is supported by the next
sentence, which states that only a variation in whitespace or
capitalization is to be accepted - which strongly implies that even
something as small as omitting a {u} from {honour} is sufficient to
cause a rule change to fail. As such, there is no reason to accept an
ambiguity in the method of a rule change - it is a far more major
omission than a {u}.

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

Panelist root's Arguments:

R105 defines "rule change" as a subclass of effects that instruments
can have.  "The specification of a rule change", then, is the
specification of (part of) the instrument's effect, i.e. detailing how
the affected rule is to be changed.  It does not include per se the
identity of the instrument performing the rule change, nor can I see
that the rule provides any leeway for interpreting it otherwise.
Thus, Murphy's action was not ambiguous with respect to the
specification of the rule change it would perform.

There may be cause for judging the attempt to have failed due to
ambiguity, but R105 does not provide it.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

It occurs to me for the first time in this case that there's actually
only *one* method, "by announcement", and that two different rules happen
to agree on conditions where that mechanism can be used.  If the conditions
in the two rules are substantially different, you just have the case of
"by announcement CAN be used if (Rule A OR Rule B conditions) = TRUE",
and (A OR B) is obviously true if (A AND B) is true, so it's meaningless or
unnecessary to specify "which one of" (A OR B) are true when (A AND B) is
true.

Has anyone said that yet?

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I agree with you, and disagree with everyone else regarding ambiguity.
 If Rule A says:

A person CAN deregister by announcement.

and Rule B says:

A person CAN deregister by announcement; e CANNOT register for thirty
days thereafter.

then, by Rule 478, a person takes the action of deregistering by
announcing that e deregisters.  No rule says that e need mention "by
what rule" e is deregistering, just that e is doing so, and no rule
gives such a mention any legal weight or states that a person can
choose "by what rule" e is taking an action.  Therefore, either
deregistering *always* fails in this scenario due to ambiguity (the
rules don't state which mechanism is to be used), or the mechanisms in
both rules are satisfied at the same time.  I prefer the latter, and
this applies to all such actions-- under the current contest rules, if
a contestmaster of two contests awards points to a member of both
contests, this counts against eir total for both contests (because
both mechanisms are being used simultaneously).  Hence, I believe that
the rule change was not ambiguous, but the contest rules are broken.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

That would imply that a player could remove all their Rests by spending
just 2 Notes. After all, you CAN destroy a Rest by spending 2 Notes. So
your Note spend destroys as many Rests as you want...

In other words, I don't think this argument fits game custom at all.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I don't see what your argument is there.  If we treat that in terms of
the effect of announcements, I am announcing that I spend two notes to
destroy a Rest.  The assets rule makes such an announcement effective,
with or without the 'destroy a Rest' bit; the Rests rule says that
when I announce that I am spending two notes 'to destroy a
Rest'==>'for the purpose of destroying a Rest', the announcement does
in fact destroy one of my Rests, but it's implied that an announcement
can only have one such purpose.  So I can't destroy multiple rests, or
spend C C to destroy a rest as well as giving ehird a C note, etc.
because I have to have exactly one purpose for the destruction.  But
the contests rule does not say I award points 'for a particular
contest' or 'to be an award for a particular contest', only that I
award points up to the total.  An announcement that I award points
thus can satisfy that condition for multiple contests.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

I thought about this after writing it.  This is how I resolved it.

When the rules enable an otherwise restricted action, the "enabling"
language has three parts:  Action, Method, Enabling Conditions.

If there are two rules, that allow "approximately" the same thing:

1.  If the actions differ, there is ambiguity.
2.  If the methods differ, there may be ambiguity, but it may
    be resolved because action is almost always in context (e.g.
    "by announcement" is done with an announcement, "by submission
    to a certain party" is done by said submission, etc.
3.  Enabling conditions work as logical ORs, so not being clear
    about which enabling conditions you satisfy does not create
    ambiguity.  Furthermore, game tradition is not in favor of
    specifying enabling conditions, you don't say "by the
    authority of Rule X, I hereby vote...".

In the current case, the action is unambiguously "amend the rule to
read X" and method unambiguously "by announcement."  The only ambiguity
is in "which" of the parts of the logical OR is used, but that is not
relevant as I said before.

For points awards, it's a bit different.  It's tempting to read that
the action is "award X points" and the conditional is "because the
player earned them through being a contestant" which would lead to the
difficulties that ais523 describes, or the alternate interpretation of
comex that one award attempt might satisfy multiple awards.

However, if you look at the contest rules (R2233), the construct that
the contest owns a certain number of points, so the action is actually
"awarding a subset of these 5N points from this contest" while the
Scorekeepor (R2234) "awards a subset of [a different] N points."
So these actions are different, because the awards are drawn from
different subsets of [potential] points.

So, if a Scorekeepor is also a contestmaster, and they just say "I
award X points to Y" then there is ambiguity in the action, not the
conditional, so it doesn't work.  I think that's pretty much holding
with game custom:  if you tell me you're awarding me points but there's
multiple "potential points pools" they can be drawn from, you need
to specify.

For Rests, you spend to "destroy a Rest".  While rests are fungible,
they can be ordered, so each spend is to "destroy the first...second...
Nth rest" so again, different actions.  Since there's specific
fungibility, you don't have to specify (any arbitrary ordering works).

It is perfectly true that a rules amendment could *make* the actions
for rule changes that Murphy attempted into different actions (for
example with ais523's recent proposal attempt) but currently that is not
so.

[There's also a parallel question for SHALL... if the same action
would independently satisfy two different SHALLs, does doing the
action once satisfy both?]

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Yally:

[invalid because no replacement judgement specified]

I agree with Goethe's Gratuitous arguments in that even if a game action is
twice permitted by the rules, it is unnecessary to explicitly denote which
individual instance of allowance permitted the rule. Had the different forms
of empowering the action led to alternate results, then disambiguation would
be necessary. However, since, as far as the rules are concerned, it did not, I
judge OVERRULE.

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