==============================  CFJ 1965  ==============================

    ehird's Announcement of Chaos caused at least one contract to
    terminate.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       22 May 2008 12:02:11 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        23 May 2008 13:37:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    29 May 2008 20:23:43 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I suspect FALSE. The contract in question defines an
Annoucement of Chaos as something which destroys all rules and then
terminates the contract. Because ehird's annoucement did not (per CFJ
1958) destroy all the rules, it therefore was not an Annoucement of Chaos,
thus the contract's termination condition was not met. (The way I've
phrased the question also requires a subsidiary point to be considered;
if a CFJ refers to something that doesn't exist (the Annoucement of Chaos
in this case), what is the appropriate judgement for the CFJ?)

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

The issue is whether "destroys all rules and then terminates the
contract" in its entirety fails if the first part fails.  The
precedent of CFJs 1638-45 tells us that, were the two actions
(destroying all rules and terminating the contract) both amendments to
a rule, doing both in the same sentence would be a single rule change.

However, this is only because the rule changes in CFJs 1638-45 were
both amendments to the same text.  The described changes could have
been written as "Amend Rule xxxx by replacing the entire body with
(amended version)".  In other words, it would be possible to make the
changes explicitly inseparable, where no rule could say "Halfway in
the middle of this amendment, have someone win the game.".

In the case of destroying all rules then terminating the contract, the
changes are definitely separable.  There is no way those actions could
be worded such that a Rule which said that upon the destruction of a
rule, someone wins the game would not have effect between the two
actions.

All this proves is that CFJs 1638-45 are irrelevant.  So we must
interpret it without precedent, and with respect to ordinary language.

I think that "I register and I deregister" would indeed be two
indepedent actions, so even if the first failed, the second would
succeed.  But here there are two reasons why terminating the contract
should be dependent on destroying all rules:

i. The word "then" implies that the former has no meaning without the
context of the latter.
ii. An Announcement of Chaos is something that has both effects.  If
ehird's Announcement of Chaos did not have both effects, then it was
not an Announcement of Chaos at all.  There is a contradiction, so it
has no effect.

But there is also a third reason:
iii. Terminating the contract is a Contract Change.  Although we're
leaning toward the action being unsuccessful, it's definitely
ambiguous whether terminating the contract was intended or allowed.
Therefore, Rule 2197 says it has no effect.

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

Judge omd's Evidence:

Evidence (1):
> I intend to make the following contract with Ivan Hope CXXVII: {This
contract's
> mechanism for being terminated is an Announcement of Chaos, which destroys
> all rules and then terminates the contract.}

Evidence (2):
Rule 2197/1 (Power=1.5)
Defining Contract Changes
...
     If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot
     be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then
     that change has no effect.

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