==============================  CFJ 1559  ==============================

    Quazie successfully played Library Renewal on April 21st


Caller:                                 Quazie
Barred:                                 root
Barred:                                 Maud

Judge:                                  Manu
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Quazie:                       23 Apr 2005 15:01:20 GMT
Assigned to Manu:                       24 Apr 2005 05:55:48 GMT
Judged FALSE by Manu:                   27 Apr 2005 18:11:04 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

      * Caption: Library Renewal
        Elements: Budgeted
        Exploit: Upon playing this card you may indicate a number
                 1 through 5.  ASAP after you do this the speaker
                 must randomly discard that many cards from the
                 Library's hand that are not reserved.  If the
                 Speaker has discarded all non reserved cards
                 then e does not need to discard any more.

      (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and
          only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e
          meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in
          that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar
          pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of
          that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known
          as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is
          automatically transferred to the Discard Pile immediately
          after being Played.

Quazie  agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:34:57 -0400

On 4/20/05, Ian Kelly <kellyia@udel.edu> wrote:

>> I delegate the office of Deckmastor to Quazie for three weeks, starting
>> immediately, pending eir consent.
>> -root

I accept this delegation, and gladly accept the office of Deckmastor.

I think the title of this message is sufficient for roots transfer of
a card to me.

Now, I play Library Renewal and indicate 5 cards to be discarded.


Judge Manu's Arguments:


Quazie's action, "I play Library Renewal and indicate 5 cards to be
discarded.", looks valid. The Card's Exploit explains that the Player
must indicate a number between 1 and 5. Quazie indicated that number,
even if he went a little bit ahead and mentioned the discarding of
Cards, which is not part of the Exploit itself - just the indicating
bit is. Still, the Card is played and a number is indicated. There is
no problem with the sentence in itself.


There may be a problem though if we look at how Exploits are defined.
Rule 2069 mentions that "Taking an action described in an Exploit is
known as Playing the Card." and the Card says that "Upon playing this
card you may indicate a number 1 through 5."
Trying to understand the relationship between the two sentences makes
me thing of Escher's hands drawing/drawing hands loop. Taking an
action described in an Exploit is Playing that Card but what if the
Exploit IS Playing that Card? In the case of Library Renewal, the
"Upon playing this card[...]" part is not an action, just a time
requirement. BUT it comes BEFORE the actual R2069-wise "Playing the
Card" (i.e. the action, the number indicating). I could resume the
Exploit as "Upon X, you may X".

Even going further, R2069 alone seems confusing to me. Let me quote
two parts of R2069(d):
    "(d) An Exploit is an action that[...]"
    "Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the
So an Exploit is an action but may also contain an action.
Self-referencing, again. Reworking the previous formula, we could
translate Library Renewal as "Upon taking an action, you may take an
action", where the first "taking an action" is synonym with "An
Exploit is an action" and the second ocurrance falls within "an action
described in an Exploit". Hrm. Two different meaning for "action" in
the same paragraph.

But what could be considered "an action described in an Exploit",
exactly? Is "indicating a number" an action? Is it the random
discarding by the Speaker? The word action is appearing everywhere in
the Ruleset and nearly everything a Player does is an action. And more
importantly, an Exploit is an action, as proven earlier. So everything
included in the Exploit is one single action, game-wise (especially
regarding R1527). This adds nothing to my argument, only to the
complexity of the case.


Which came first, the Rule or the Card? Obviously, R2069. Since the
Library came later, R2069 has a lower Rule number than Library Renewal
(it doesn't appear in my copy of the Ruleset) and thus, has precedence
over the Card (according to R1030). Therefore, one could say that
"playing this card" appearing in the Card Exploit is overrided by the
definition in R2069 and according to this fine Rule, playing the Card
is "Taking an action described in an Exploit". So, retranslating the
Card, we get "Upon taking an action described in this Exploit, you may
indicate[...]". Does that make any more sense? Hardly.


Because of the mess caused by self-referencing and double-meaning, it
is my understanding (or lack of) that the Library Renewal is an
invalid Card, does not make sense and is unplayable until it is
reworded. Therefore, I return a judgement of FALSE.