Index ← 2492 CFJ 2493 2494a → text
==============================  CFJ 2493  ==============================

    A proposal that fixes an obvious grammatical error that completely
    changes the meaning of a rule counts as modifying a substantive
    aspect of the meaning of the rule.


Caller:                                 Rodlen

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Rodlen:                       04 May 2009 22:55:22 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    04 May 2009 23:08:24 GMT
Judged TRUE by scshunt:                 05 May 2009 00:22:14 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Rule 2140 suggests TRUE:

      A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that
      affects the instrument's operation.

However, in my opinion, fixing an error by definition doesn't change
the meaning of anything: a fix that would change the rule to use an
interpretation different from the one already being used to interpret
it is more than just a fix.


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

The only case where a {substantive aspect of the meaning of the rules.}
is mentioned is in R2247. The rules provide no definition for such an
aspect, and other definitions of substantive aspects only apply to rules
(and note that almost every aspect of a rule is considered substantive
in some cases by R2141) themselves and not their meanings.

The meaning of a rule has no precise definition, so R217 provides some
guidance. Game custom and past judgments are not available here as R2140
is new, and so common sense and consideration of the best interests of
the game should be used. R2140 provides a guiding definition that
applies to instruments and, while it isn't a binding interpretation as
it applies only to instruments, should be used for guiding the definition.

In the context, it makes the most sense to interpret the meaning of the
rule as being the fundamental effect that it has upon the game. For
instance, R2221 provides a hassle-free process by which minor errors in
the rules can be corrected without the need for a proposal, while R2147
specifies a special class of foreign nomics which have submitted to
Agora's jurisdiction. The substantive aspects of that meaning would
therefore be how the rule interacts with the rest of the game to
accomplish its purpose - for instance, R2221's primary substantive
aspects are the ability to make spelling and grammatical changes only,
and the ability to accomplish this without objection.

I cannot imagine a situation in which you could {completely change} the
meaning of a rule without modifying any of that meaning's substantive
aspects. Accordingly, I assign a judgment of TRUE.