==============================  CFJ 1533  ==============================

    Rule 1561 cannot prevent an adopted Rule Change from taking effect.


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Sir Toby

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1533a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1533b
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by G.:                           07 Mar 2005 06:24:05 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby:                   13 Mar 2005 02:35:25 GMT
Sir Toby recused:                       20 Mar 2005 21:55:49 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     20 Mar 2005 21:57:21 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 27 Mar 2005 05:41:44 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         27 Mar 2005 15:21:54 GMT
Appealed by Sherlock:                   29 Mar 2005 14:10:51 GMT
Appealed by root:                       30 Mar 2005 21:52:43 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       31 Mar 2005 04:36:38 GMT
Appeal 1533a:                           31 Mar 2005 04:36:38 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     06 Apr 2005 00:28:24 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     09 Apr 2005 23:51:29 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  15 Apr 2005 07:47:24 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     15 Apr 2005 08:18:24 GMT
Appealed by Quazie:                     15 Apr 2005 10:47:41 GMT
Appealed by root:                       15 Apr 2005 14:00:48 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         15 Apr 2005 16:15:46 GMT
Appeal 1533b:                           15 Apr 2005 16:15:46 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     17 Apr 2005 05:11:59 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     17 Apr 2005 05:11:59 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 18 Apr 2005 08:26:39 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 107 (power-3), states "[Any Proposed Rule Change] if
adopted, must guide play in the form in which it was voted on."

While an adopted Rule Change may be delayed in taking effect
and still guide game play (e.g. R376), any Rule which wholly
prevents an adopted Rule Change from taking effect, and indeed
prevents it from having "any" effect, prevents the Rule Change
from guiding game play, and thus conflicts with R107.

R1561 does so conflict.

Rule 1561 (power-2) prevents any Proposal that bribes players
from having any effect on game play, "even if adopted".
Therefore, R1561 does not attempt to prevent proposals from
being adopted.

As for adopted proposals not having any effect, this may be
enforceable for portions of Proposals which are not Rule Changes.

But if a portion of a Proposal that is a Rule Change is interpreted
not having any effect, the Rule Change would not guide game play,
and thus R1561 would conflict with R107.

While R1561's bribery clause is applied "any Rule to the contrary
nonwithstanding", R107 has higher power than R1561, and thus,
by R1482, R107 wins the conflict in spite of R1561's precedence


Caller's Evidence:

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 1561/2 (Power=2)
Illegality of Bonus Clauses

       Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to
       vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another
       Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is
       adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.

       Proposing a card with an element of Grafty is not considered

Rule 1482/1 (Power=3)
Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power

       In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with
       the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

Rule 107 requires adopted rule changes to guide play, but this is not
the same as requiring them to determine play.  Instead, the combination
of the adopted rule changes and the existing rules (including Rule 1561)
determine play.

This is similar to Rule 101 requiring players to obey the rules as a
whole, but not requiring them to obey an individual rule in a situation
where another rule takes precedence over it.

Accordingly, I judge CFJ 1533 to be FALSE.


Appellant G.'s Arguments:

Rule 1561 reads that certain adopted proposals
will be COMPLETELY without effect on game play.
I'm sorry, but I cannot think of any way that
something can guide game play, as absolutely requred by R107, by having
completely no effect
on it.

This is even if you accept a weak definition
of "guiding" game play.

The definitions are absolutely contradictory, and
the R101 example the judge uses is specifically
and ironically inaccurate: as we must obey the rules
as a whole not individually, we must obey the
precedence of 107 over 1561.  I can't see any way
to play the game otherwise.


Appellant Maud's Arguments:

The truth of the statement of CFJ 1533 depends in part on whether it is
possible to guide play while having no effect.  The Caller purports to
show that if something has absolutely no effect on play, then it is not
guiding play either.  However, the Judge implicitly asserts that
something can guide play but have no effect on play, giving no argument
for the assertion.

The statement of CFJ 1533 should be judged false if there is an explicit
example of a hypothetical adopted rule change which could be prevented
from taking effect by rule 1561 or less elegantly if there is a
derivable contradiction from the assumption that the statement is true.
In either case, more argumentation is required than was provided by the


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

Rule 594 says that, when a proposal takes effect, its provisions "are
are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules".  A similar
principle applies to conflicts between two Rules:  one Rule takes precedence,
and the provisions of the other Rule are implemented to the maximal extent
permitted by the first Rule.

For instance, Rule 1583 "takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to
penalties that are a direct result of voting", but it does not cause such
Rules to be completely without effect; it does not cause their definitions
of penalizable acts to be without effect; in fact, it does not cause their
definitions of the penalty amounts to be *completely* without effect.  It
*does* cause their definitions of the penalty amounts to be *incompletely*
effective; specifically, the normal penalty amounts still function as inputs
to Rule 1583's halving function.

Similarly, Rule 107 takes precedence over Rule 1561, but it does not
cause Rule 1561's "completely without effect" clause to be *completely*
without effect.  Instead, here is what happens:

  1) To satisfy Rule 107, the proposal and its text guide play.  They do
     so by activating the various clauses in the Ruleset (in Rules 107,
     1561, and some others) that determine the *further* effect of the

  2) Then, to satisfy Rule 1561, the proposal and its text are completely
     without *further* effect.

I judge CFJ 1533 to be TRUE.  Again.


Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

Aww, crap.

Obviously the arguments indicate a re-judgement of FALSE, but since I
made a thinko there at the end:

I call for the appeal of CFJ 1533.  I request that two or more other
players do likewise.  I furthermore request that the Board of Appeals
vote to overturn and remand, so that I might deliver the intended
judgement of FALSE.