Index ← 3450 CFJ 3451 3452 → text
==============================  CFJ 3451  ==============================

    Proposals 7773 and 7774 will have no effect if passed

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

Caller:     Tristan Bredeweg
Judge:      Tiger
Judgement:  TRUE

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

Called by Tristan Bredeweg:                         29 Jul 2015 16:15:53
Assigned to Tiger:                                  10 Aug 2015 01:33:33
Judged TRUE by Tiger:                               10 Aug 2015 10:25:43

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


Exhibit by the Warrigal:

Though if you ask me, the phrase 'Rule 2455 "How to Pend a Proposal"'
is completely unambiguous. There's absolutely no reasonable doubt as
to what the intended meaning of the phrase is, so the error
constitutes "difference in spelling" which "does not create an
ambiguity in meaning".

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


Exhibit by G.:

A CFJ found differently IIRC, but I think in that case the mis-numbering
referred accidentally to a different existing rule.
As Rulekeepor, I wholly disagree that this is a different in "spelling",
though it *may* still be clear enough depending what the precedent
says...

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


Exhibit by Tristan Bredeweg:

It was CFJ 1625. "Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number
and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this
constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change."
That doesn't refer to when the other rule doesn't exist. But, the rules
say, "An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule
does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other
variation does." I think this would fall under "any other variation".

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

Judge's Arguments:

Main argument: the proposals refer to Rule 2445 by the ID 2455 (and the correct title).

My judgment is overall in line with Tristan Bredeweg's arguments.

There are two ways the incorrect specification could constitute
"ambiguity" as relates to Rule 105. One is by the natural-language
interpretation of the word; the other is by the second sentence quoted
above – "any other variation does".

By the natural-language interpretation of ambiguity alone, I would deem
that using the wrong ID, which is not used by any other rule, and the
correct title, is clear enough. Ambiguity implies multiple potential
meanings. There is no sensible way for the "incorrect" number 2455 to be
an indication of another meaning, or an attempt at obfuscation of the
proposal's effect, when there is no rule 2455 but there is a 2445. I
deem this case to not fall under the precedent of CFJ 1625.

However, the second sentence of the paragraph specifies that any
variation, other than "inconsequential variation in the quotation of a
rule", constitutes ambiguity. I take this to be an extra safety measure:
even if, as in this case, the intended meaning was never really
ambiguous to us (to me), the rules require a higher standard of clarity.
So, is this an inconsequential variation in the quotation of the rule?

The word "quotation", as opposed to "specification" or something else,
along with Rule 2141's assertion that "[a] rule's content takes the form
of a text", tells me that the only inconsequential quotations intended
to be covered here, are inconsequential quotations of the rule's text.
In a strict logical sense, every rule "has" a text, an ID, a title etc
on the same relational-database-style level. However, the language used
separates the text from the other rule properties: a rule's content is a
text, and a rule additionally has some parameters. So in a way. a rule
"is" a text, which "has" an ID. A "quotation of a rule" would then not
cover the case of identifying it by its title and ID.

Writing the string "Rule 2455, How to Pend a Proposal" is not a case of
(incorrectly) quoting the rule. It is similar to how, say, writing a
correct quote but misspelling the author's name is a case of misquoting
the author. It is an error, but not that particular error. Thus, the
error committed by proposals 7773 and 7774 falls under the "any other
variation" language of Rule 105, and the proposals would have no effect
if passed.

I judge CFJ 3451 to be TRUE.

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

Judge's Evidence:

Rule 2141/9 (Power=3)
Role and Attributes of Rules

         A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
         game generally, and is always taking effect.  A rule's content
         takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.

         Every rule has power between 0.1 and 4.0 inclusive.  It is
         not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.

         Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.

         Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
         rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign a
         title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.

         For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
         the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
         substantive aspects of the rule.  However, rules to the contrary
         notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as
         described elsewhere in this rule.


Rule 105/12 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

         [...]

         Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
         change to be void and without effect.  An inconsequential
         variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not
         constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any
         other variation does.

         [...]

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