=============================== CFJ 3713 ===============================
Gaelan is impure.
Called by twg: 13 Feb 2019 23:01:38
Assigned to G.: 15 Feb 2019 13:37:38
Judged FALSE by G.: 15 Feb 2019 14:53:56
On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:08 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> For each player, I point my finger at that player for failing to reenact
> rule 2452 (“Trust Tokens”) with the same ID number and the next change
> identifier, in violation of rule 105.
The relevant clause of R105 says:
A repealed rule identified by its most recent
rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and the
next change identifier.
I believe there are two possible readings of this:
(1) The common sense interpretation: When a person re-enacts a rule, e
MUST do so with the same ID number and the next change identifier, i.e., e
MUST NOT do so without those parameters.
(2) The literal interpretation: Repealed rules are REQUIRED to be re-
enacted, i.e., every repealed rule that is not re-enacted is guilty of a
violation of the rules.
Interestingly, R105 has an equal power and smaller ID number to R869, and
therefore (I believe) overrides R869's statement that "the Rules CANNOT
compel non-players to act without their express or reasonably implied
consent", which means that interpretation (2), if correct, is in fact
binding on repealed rules. (The guilty rules cannot, unfortunately, be
punished, since both Finger-Pointing and Summary Judgement are restricted
Neither of these interpretations imposes any obligation on any player to
re-enact repealed rules. Therefore, for each player other than Gaelan, I
announce the below-quoted Pointing of Gaelan's Finger at that player to be
However, just in case I'm wrong, I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by
levying a fine of 3 blots on Gaelan for failing to reenact rule 2452
("Trust Tokens") with the same ID number and the next change identifier,
in violation of rule 105. If I am correct that no rules violation
occurred, then of course this attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
The rule in question should be read with the preamble. In other words:
Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as
part of its effect, (3) reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by
its most recent rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number
and the next change identifier.
This makes it clear that it's the instrument doing the re-enactment, a
player CANNOT (unless e is an instrument). What it means for a non-Player
instrument to violate a MUST - well, I dunno, but it doesn't apply to
Gaelan. I find FALSE.