==============================  CFJ 1930  ==============================

    It is impossible for a player to become Referee within the meaning
    of the public contract that is the backing document for XP without
    failing to do something that its paragraph 8 specifies that the
    Referee SHALL do in that situation, under the current set of rules.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       28 Apr 2008 18:30:46 GMT
Assigned to root:                       29 Apr 2008 00:14:34 GMT
Judged TRUE by root:                    08 May 2008 21:48:26 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

My evidence that this should be judged TRUE:

Rule 105/3 states that "This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules
can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a
rule or cease to be a rule." Therefore, the only way by which the Referee can
create a secret rule (and the set of all secret rules is necessarily a subset
of the set of all rules, according to normal English usage) is by virtue of
the methods provided in rule 105/3, or else by an instrument with sufficient
power to take precedence over it; rule 105/3 has power 3, and the backing
document for XP has a lower power (0). Rule 105/3 also implies that only rules
may authorise changes to the rules, and the backing document for XP is not a
rule.

Rule 106/12 is the only other currently existing rule that allows rules
changes (rule 105/3 permits it to make such changes), and it requires such
changes to be made via a proposal. However, it states that all such proposals
must be 'published', which would cause them to not be 'secret'.

Therefore there is no way for a player to become Referee without failing to
fulfil a SHALL requirement paragraph 8 of the backing document for XP.

(I note in passing that the heading 'CONTEST RULES' in that backing document
is wrong, as such 'rules' were never proposed.)

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

Judge root's Arguments:

In CFJ 1659, it was found that a contract was necessarily bound to the
definitions provided by the rules by the version of Rule 754 then in
effect.  Since then, we have added the phrase "by default" to R754
paragraph (2), but this does not necessarily mean that a contract is
altogether free of rules-based definitions.  A contract must indicate
in some way that an alternate definition is to be used, or else the
definition from the rules applies.

The contract does not explicitly indicate any alternate definition for
"rule", so any such direction must be implicit, to be gleaned from
context.  It certainly appears from context that the R2141 definition
is not intended; perhaps the best indication of this is that the
term's usage seems to fall more in line with the dictionary definition
of "a prescribed mathematical method for performing a calculation or
solving a problem."  But this is not a clear criterion, as there are
instances of the word "rule" in the ruleset that might be interpreted
the same way, for example in R2154 in the phrase "quorum is the lesser
of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum
notwithstanding)".  Why should the Fight Arena's usage be granted
non-default status, but not the usage in R2154?  Proceeding from here,
I find that the Fight Arena contract is neither explicit nor clearly
implicit in substituting a non-default meaning for the word "rule".

Goethe has advanced the argument that a modified noun is not
necessarily an instance of the class of objects described by the base
noun, for which e references a prior case in which a "limited
executor" was found not to be an "executor".  In that case, however,
both terms were explicitly defined by the rules, so the phrase
"limited executor" would be described more accurately as a compound
noun than as the word "executor" with a modifier.  In general, I think
Goethe is correct -- petrified wood is not wood, for example -- but I
can see no reason in this case to view the word "secret" as anything
other than a plain adjective.  Most tellingly, the same paragraph of
the Fight Arena that requires the Referee to create a secret rule goes
on to refer to it simply as a "rule".

Accordingly, I find that the definition of the word "rule" in the
Fight Arena contract is that provided by Rule 2141.  By the arguments
provided by the caller, I therefore judge this CFJ to be TRUE.

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