==============================  CFJ 1499  ==============================

    Rule 2050 has been repealed.

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

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Pakaran
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Cainech
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Kolja
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1499a
Decision:                               SUSTAIN

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

History:

Called by G.:                           20 Apr 2004 22:09:33 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      21 Apr 2004 04:47:32 GMT
Taral recused:                          29 Apr 2004 05:55:24 GMT
Assigned to Pakaran:                    02 May 2004 21:11:26 GMT
Pakaran recused:                        16 May 2004 21:11:26 GMT
Assigned to Cainech:                    22 May 2004 18:17:29 GMT
Cainech recused:                        31 May 2004 20:33:03 GMT
Assigned to Kolja:                      31 May 2004 20:39:37 GMT
Judged FALSE by Kolja:                  04 Jun 2004 21:59:10 GMT
Appealed by Taral:                      09 Jun 2004 19:40:58 GMT
Appealed by root:                       09 Jun 2004 20:16:56 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       09 Jun 2004 23:44:11 GMT
Appeal 1499a:                           09 Jun 2004 23:44:11 GMT
SUSTAINED on Appeal:                    04 Jul 2004 15:45:52 GMT
Appealed by root:                       19 Jun 2005 22:21:42 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 105 (Power=3) specifies:
     A Rule Change is any of the following:
         * The repeal of an existing Rule;

and Rule 107 (Power=3) notes:
      Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise
      communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted,
      it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.

Herald root's attempt to perform the rule change of repealing Rule 2050,
while specified by Rule 2050 itself, "If there are no Players that
hold at least one Weed or Daffodil, the Herald may repeal this Rule
without Objection." was not voted on.

It is true that Rule 1322 (Power=3) states that "A given Rule Change
shall not take effect unless the Power of the instrument which specified
it is at least as great as the greater of the current Power of the Rule
to be Changed (if any)..."  and Rule 2050 is as powerful as itself, and
specifies the change.  However, this contradicts Rule 107's stipulation
that Rule Changes guide play in the form they are voted on, as it cannot
be said that root's particular change was voted on.  And Rule 107 has a
higher precedence than Rule 1322, or of course Rule 2050.

While Rule 107 defers to other sets of rules to define "voting" it can
not be reasonably stated that performing an action without objection is
part of voting mechanisms.  Votes and vote proceedures are defined
explicitly in many other rules (e.g. Rule 106).  Getting approval by
having no objections as per Rule 1728 (Power=2) is not specifically part
of these mechanisms.

Also note that Rule 115, on self-reference, speaks of self-referential
rule changes, not self-referential rules (in spite of the rule's title).

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

Judge Kolja's Arguments:

According to 105, a rules repeal is a rule change.

107 requires 'proposed' rule changes to be in writing, to be voted on
and to be enacted as voted on.

However, the repeal of 2050 was never 'proposed'. This can be
interpreted to imply that it was not a legal rule change at all, or
simply that the requirements of 107 do not apply to it. The former
interpretation seems to be that of the caller of this CFJ and would
lead to a judgement of FALSE.

I will argue below that I do not subscribe to this reasoning, so let's
pursue the latter interpretation. Is it acceptable to allow
'non-proposed' rule changes to happen, and is this authorized by the
rules?

The rules do not clearly require that all rule changes must be
triggered by proposals.

There is very little rules language linking proposals to rule changes
at all; in 107, 'proposed rule change' is used as a kind of synonym for
'proposal' (note that its _title_ seems to imply that _all_ rule
changes are affected by the rule, but the rule _text_ only refers to
'proposed' rule changes), but most rules about rule changes do not
mention proposals (or any other mechanisms to enact rule changes)
specifically, e.g. 1339. In addition, 1322 seems to be worded
intentionally to avoid specifying the mechanisms or instruments that
cause rule changes, as is the last sentence of the first paragraph of
594.

On the other hand, proposals are not necessarily about rule changes: In
fact, CFJ 778 stated that proposals don't have to contain rule changes
at all, and the concept of null proposals (2016) explicitly allows this
possibility.

[Side note: In my opinion, rules _are_ able to repeal other rules or
themselves. The only restrictions to rule-triggered repeals I could
find in a cursory scan of the rules are in 594 (power of the repealing
rule must be at least as high as that of the repealed rule). This is
trivially irrelevant in the case of self-repealing rules.

There is precedence for rules being repealed through the action of
other rules or themselves (I believe the Repeal-O-Matic was an
example), so if 2050 had simply repealed itself a judgement of FALSE on
this CFJ would run into inconsistencies with previous game custom, but
this is not the issue here because the repeal of 2050 was only
authorized by 2050, but actually executed by the Herald.

The annotations to 115 mention CFJ 700 that allowed self-repealing
rules. While I'm not sure whether there were substantial changes to the
proposal system since then, this would be consistent with a judgement
of TRUE on the present CFJ _provided_ the rule had repealed itself.

Bottom line: although it might be seen as an imprecision in 107 (if it
started 'all rule changes must be proposed in writing...' or some such
thing the situation would be quite different), I don't see any reason
why rules should not be able to repeal other rules or themselves.]

However, here we are dealing not with a rule repeling a rule (namely
itself), but with an officer repealing a rule. This is never
specifically mentioned in the rules or game custom, as far as I could
see. It is not a 'proposed' rule change (I consider 'proposing' a rule
defined term because the term 'proposal' is), so the 'voting'
requirement of 107 does not apply (no matter whether one considers the
'without objection' mechanism a 'vote' or not).

The crucial point is whether the requirement of 1322 is met. This
depends on which entity 'specified' the rule change. I do not believe
that it was the rule itself (otherwise my reasoning above about
rule-triggered repeals would apply, and the repeal would stand). 2050
only authorized (or tried to authorize) its repeal by another
instrument, but it did not actually trigger it (this required a
decision by the Herald and the 'without objection' routine - without
this action from the Herald the rule would have continued to exist).

Probably the entity actually doing the repeal was the Herald emself or,
possibly, the announcement(s) of eirs indicating the intent to repeal
the rule without objection. These entities do not have a power assigned
to them in any rule I can find, so their power is probably zero (1688).
They are thus not really 'instruments' (which must have a non-zero
power per 1688) and the requirement of 1322 is not met.

I therefore judge the CFJ to be FALSE.

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

Judge Kolja's Evidence:

Rule 105/1 (Power=3)
What Is a Rule Change?

      A Rule Change is any of the following:

      * The enactment of a new Rule;
      * The repeal of an existing Rule;
      * The amendment of the text of an existing Rule; or
      * Any change to a substantive property of a Rule other than
        its text.

      A "substantive property of a Rule" is any property of that
      Rule (other than its text) which determines in part or in full
      the ability of that Rule to govern by itself or in conjunction
      with other Rules.

Rule 107/1 (Power=3)
Rule Changes Must Be Written Down

      Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise
      communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted,
      it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.  For
      the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including
      mailing lists, are valid media.

Rule 1322/3 (Power=3)
Effectiveness of Rule Changes

      A given Rule Change shall not take effect unless the Power of
      the instrument which specified it is at least as great as the
      greater of the current Power of the Rule to be Changed (if any)
      and the Power the Rule would have after the Change (if any).

Rule 1339/6 (Power=3)
Precision in Rule Changes

      Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule
      Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a
      Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.

      Variations in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of
      text in an existing Rule to be removed or replaced does not
      create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this
      Rule.  Any other variation, however, does.

Rule 594/8 (Power=3)
Power and Proposals

      No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4.  Except as
      described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any
      entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be
      so set.  No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power
      greater than its own.

      When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to
      its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of
      the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by
      the Rules.

      Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are
      ignored.  In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each
      provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal
      states otherwise.

      For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted
      Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.

Rule 2050/0 (Power=2)
The Garden
      A Daffodil is a Boon that may be awarded as the Rules specify or
      by an Instrument of Power 2 or greater.
      A Weed is an Albatross that may be awarded as the Rules specify
      or by an Instrument of Power 2 or greater.
      If there are no Players that hold at least one Weed or Daffodil,
      the Herald may repeal this Rule without Objection.

Rule 1688/1 (Power=3)
Power

      Power is an Index.  An Instrument is an entity with nonzero
      Power.  The Power of a given entity is zero unless otherwise
      defined by the Rules.

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

Appellant Taral's Arguments:

Rule 1322 specifies the Power
of the instrument which _specifies_ the Rule Change. Rule 2025 specified
the Rule Change, the Herald was merely the executor of it.

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