Index ← 2643 CFJ 2644 2645 → text
==============================  CFJ 2644  ==============================

    The owner of a Local Election card CAN play it, causing it to be
    destroyed.

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

Caller:                                 Wooble

Judge:                                  Quazie
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Walker
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Wooble:                       31 Jul 2009 14:09:50 GMT
Assigned to Quazie:                     02 Aug 2009 16:10:20 GMT
Quazie recused:                         16 Aug 2009 19:41:20 GMT
Assigned to Walker:                     16 Aug 2009 19:49:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by Walker:                 16 Aug 2009 20:15:55 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

R2256 says the card is destroyed, then later says it's not.
 R2240 doesn't seem to apply, since the clauses of the rule don't
claim to take precedence over one another; UNDECIDABLE seems like an
appropriate judgment.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Contradiction != paradox. We have R217 for this sort of
thing. ('Cretans' is brought up occasionally too, but that only applies
to a rule claiming precedence over itself, specifically; maybe it should
be generalised to all contradictions within rules.) Although it isn't
obvious whether this is TRUE or FALSE, it's definitely one or the other.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

This has come up before, so it's worth mentioning:  it may be reasonable
to consider that contradictory clauses in a rule contain implicit
claims of precedence, (if a rule says "X is true" it is implicitly
saying it generally takes precedence over statements that X is not
true).  So R2240 could be applicable here.

On the matter in hand, I should like to add that the paragraph that
says the card is not destroyed and pretty direct, while the earlier
sentence that sys the card is not destroyed is a bit less direct, so
taken as a whole (in a natural reading) the later paragraph *might* be
considered to be overriding or stronger (e.g. has a greater "as
naturally written" claim of precedence, as if a "however" is strongly
implied between the first paragraph and the second).  I'm not pushing
this argument too strongly, just suggesting it.

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

Judge Walker's Arguments:

While I am leaning towards G.'s arguments that R2256 contains an
implicit claim of precedence, even without this claim R217 leads me
towards this judgment. Common sense and the best interests of the game
both indicate that Local Election cards could not be played when the
CFJ was called.

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