==============================  CFJ 1625  ==============================

    proposal 4805 succeeded in amending rule 2101 (prior to repealing
    it)

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

Caller:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  Peter
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Pineapple Partnership
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Zefram:                       01 Apr 2007 18:23:41 GMT
Assigned to Peter:                      06 Apr 2007 23:15:51 GMT
Peter recused:                          25 Apr 2007 23:15:47 GMT
Assigned to Pineapple Partnership:      25 Apr 2007 23:26:31 GMT
Judged FALSE by Pineapple Partnership:  29 Apr 2007 05:32:27 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Immediately before P4805, R2101 had the title "Library Cards",
and defined two classes of cards.  P4805, which is available at
<http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/vreports/vr20050620.txt>,
contained a clause that attempted to amend a rule thus:

|Amend Rule 2101 (The New Raffle) to read:
|
|      As soon as possible after the 13th day of the third month of
|      each quarter, the Deckmastor shall randomly select a copy of a
|      Raffle Ticket in the possession of a Player and announce eir
|      selection, unless no such copy exists.  Upon this announcement,
|      the Player in possession gains three instances of the ephemeral
|      Patent Title "Fortune's Fool", and each Raffle Ticket in the
|      possession of a Player is automatically discarded.

A later clause of P4805 (its last one, in fact) attempted to repeal a
rule thus:

|Repeal Rule 2101

It appears that the author of P4805 intended to amend R2093, which had
the title "The New Raffle" and text similar to the replacement text
in P4805 quoted above.  Obviously the repeal clause was sufficiently
clear and unambiguous to successfully repeal R2101.  For this reason
the question of whether the rule had been amended before its repeal did
not affect subsequently published rulesets, which is probably why this
hasn't been CFJed before.

The question is how the description "Rule 2101 (The New Raffle)" is
to be interpreted, in a situation where (a) there is a rule 2101 but
its title is not that indicated and (b) there is a rule titled "The New
Raffle" but its number is not that indicated.  There are three feasible
interpretations: (a) it refers to R2101, despite the non-matching title;
(b) it refers to "The New Raffle" (R2093) despite the non-matching
number; (c) it is too ambiguous or unclear, so the amendment clause
cannot be executed.

I think the matter is firmly resolved by the provisions of rule 1339
that were in effect at the time.  It said

      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.

I think the situation qualifies for the description "ambiguity or
irregularity", and that therefore neither R2101 nor R2093 could have
been amended by the clause in question.  I urge a judgement of FALSE on
these grounds.

For the record, at the time Rulekeepor Michael recorded P4805 as having
successfully amended R2101 before repealing it.  This is shown by eir
RCS log entry:

|4805  Goethe     amend  2068  rule loses DM's budget, gains
|                                requirement to create/destroy cards
|                                according to "Quotas"
...
|                 amend  2101  New Raffle amended (BUT, this rule is
|                                "Library cards")
...
|                 repeal 2101  so much for library cards

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

Caller's Evidence:

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.

History:
Created by Proposal 1339, Nov. 29 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1414, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, Feb. 21 1995
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 1532, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2671, Sep. 26 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial
Amended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial
<this version>
Repealed by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2093/0 (Power=1)
The New Raffle

      The following class of cards is defined:

      * Caption: Raffle Ticket
        Elements: Grafty

      As soon as possible after the 13th day of the third month of
      each quarter, the Deckmastor shall randomly select a copy of a
      Raffle Ticket in the possession of a Player and announce eir
      selection, unless no such copy exists.  Upon this announcement,
      the Player in possession gains three instances of the ephemeral
      Patent Title "Fortune's Fool", and each Raffle Ticket in the
      possession of a Player is automatically discarded.

History:
Created by Proposal 4692 (root), 18 April 2005
<this version>
Repealed by Proposal 4818 (Goethe), 10 July 2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2101/2 (Power=1)
Library Cards

      The following classes of cards are defined:

      * Caption:  Library Renewal
        Elements: Budgeted
        Exploit:  You may indicate a number 1 through 5.  As soon as
                  possible after you do this the Speaker must randomly
                  discard that many cards from the Library's hand.  If
                  there are fewer cards in the Library's hand then the
                  number you indicate the Speaker must discard them
                  all.

      * Caption:  Library Card
        Elements: Budgeted, Limited [Faculty Members][1]
        Exploit:  Check a card out from the Library for no fee.

History:
Created by Proposal 4712 (Quazie), 18 April 2005
Amended(1) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005
Amended(2) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005
<this version>
Possibly Amended(3) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005
  [subject of this CFJ]
Repealed by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005

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

Judge Pineapple Partnership's Arguments:

In addition to agreeing to the caller's arguments, the court notes
that the proposer of proposal 4805 (Goethe) was in the habit of using
both numbers and names of rules in amendment clauses as a back-up,
specifically to ensure that a clause would have no effect if the wrong
rule number was accidentally used (Goethe, pers. comm).

While intent is not evidence, it does suggest this to be a reasonable
assumption and useful precedent: you can refer to rules by number or
names, or both, but if they disagree in a single reference, it adds
enough ambiguity to nullify the rule change.

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