==============================  CFJ 1847  ==============================

    when a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least
    five times in the same week, e is awarded one blue mark by section
    (+b) of rule 2176

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

Caller:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Zefram:                       20 Dec 2007 20:50:39 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        20 Dec 2007 21:05:43 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    20 Dec 2007 23:18:52 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Section (+b) says that a blue mark is awarded for calling for judgement,
"except as noted below".  However, nothing below specifies that the award
does not occur in any type of circumstances.  When the caller has already
CFJed at least five times in the same week then section (-b) penalises
em two blue marks, but this section in particular doesn't say that the
(+b) award does not occur.

The circumstances listed for the various awards and penalties are not
meant to be interpreted as mutually exclusive.  For example, in rule
2126 it is possible to meet the conditions for both red and orange VC
awards simultaneously, and in such circumstances both awards occur.
So the penalty in (-b) does not implicitly prevent (+b)'s award from
occurring as a result of the same event.

The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the
interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is
a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award
does not occur in that more specific situation.  I contend that that
is an unjustified interpretation, reading way more into (-b) than is
written there.

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

Zefram suggests that it is to match up with a clause such as:

> A person who is wearing a hat does not gain the usual blue mark for
> calling for judgement.

However, such a clause would not need the except bit in the first place,
and in any case the rule has never had such a clause.

Zefram wrote:
> The argument against blue mark awards for excess CFJing rests on the
> interpretation that section (-b), by mentioning a circumstance that is
> a subset of the trigger for (+b), implicitly "notes" that (+b)'s award
> does not occur in that more specific situation.  I contend that that
> is an unjustified interpretation, reading way more into (-b) than is
> written there.
It seems to me that nothing is implied in -b; rather, the "except as noted
below" clause is to be interpreted that the person gets a Blue VC *unless*
the situation noted below occurs.  It seems silly to me that a statement
whose meaning can easily be inferred should be judged useless because it
is a little unclear.  Whereas *usually* the mark awards are not mutually
exclusive, the phrase "except as noted below" serves to explicitly make
them so.

On Thursday 20 December 2007, Zefram wrote:
> >Otherwise, as that bit is rather unclear,
> I think it's perfectly clear.

Then why are you CFJing on it?

Since Murphy's proposal makes the rule work as in the FALSE case, it is
clearly the intent.

> >that the rule work as intended.
> That's historically not been a consideration in interpreting the rules.

But why not?

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