Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2791

===================  CFJ 2791 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    Rule 101 is greater than rule 2029

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       26 Apr 2010 20:15:07 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     22 May 2010 14:52:40 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by Wooble:          22 May 2010 18:20:16 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The power-3 rule 2141, by insisting that rules are strictly
ordered, implies that it's possible to have a meaningful
less-than/greater-than comparison between them. However, nothing in the
ruleset seems to imply what the ordering actually /is/: precedence?
power? ID number? order of enactment? something else? It's rather lucky
that the relevant bit of gamestate is currently completely irrelevant,
or we'd have major headaches trying to figure out just what that
platonic order is.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Excerpt from Rule 2141: "Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned
by the Rulekeepor, and are strictly ordered."

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

Gratuitous Arguments by comex:

It's meant to use the definition in Rule 2161 which,
although Power-1 and inconsistent with the standard meaning of
"strictly ordered", is the only one that makes sense in context.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Rule 2161, the only other rule to use the phrase "strictly
ordered", implies that the ordering is determined by ID number, which
SHALL match order of ID number assignment, which in turn SHALL roughly
match order of enactment (the definition of ASAP allows some variance).

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

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

While the strict ordering of rules implies that between any two rules
there is an antireflexive, asymmetric, and transitive relation, this
relation is not one of "greatness".  The context of the use of the
phrase "strictly ordered" is in a sentence about ID numbers, and Rule
2161's usage (requiring that new ID numbers for strictly ordered
entities be greater than any existing ID numbers) implies that the
ordering is by increasing ID numbers, so that Rule 2029 comes after
Rule 101 in such an ordering.

It's unclear what "greater than" should be taken to mean in the
context of rules.  As it's not defined by the rules, Rule 754 requires
that we use its mathematical definition; however, the mathematical
definition relates to the magnitude of the entities, and it's unclear
what this could mean.  The body of text of Rule 101 is larger in terms
of length, and is also lexically greater than Rule 2029.  In the
context of the game, however, it could very well also make sense to
consider the Power of the rules, or their precedence generally.  In
any event, there's no satisfactory standard the Court can apply, and
as the greater than relation is irrelevant to the strict ordering, it
is beyond the scope of this CFJ to impose one.  The term "greater
than" is, at present, nonsensical when comparing rules.

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