==============================  CFJ 2839  ==============================

    In the section of Rule 106 quoted in caller's evidence, "permit"
    should be interpreted as referring to possibility and not legality.


Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Murphy:                       24 Aug 2010 07:47:46 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     28 Aug 2010 00:00:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  03 Sep 2010 10:35:46 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The rules do not explicitly define "permit", but the other rules that
use it should clearly be interpreted this way:

  * 101 and 105 discuss permission to change the rules

  * 1030 discusses permission to change the rules to create a precedence
      paradox (and refers to "can")

  * 2228 discusses permission to destroy Rests (and refers to "CANNOT")


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals), excerpt

      If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active
      player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so
      Without 3 Objections.

omd wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Sean Hunt <scshunt@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
>> Also, you cannot do this, as Wooble CAN legally distribute a proposal.
> Not this one.


Judge ais523's Arguments:

The most relevant usage of "permit" is the one earlier in the same rule,
where it explains that a player permitted to distribute proposals can do
so via a certain mechanism. The rules nowhere explicitly state that it's
legal for the Promotor to distribute proposals, but rule 1607 states
that it's possible; the can-but-shall-not construction in rule 1607 is a
common idiom, and it's clear that this is meant to be equivalent to a
CAN for the purposes of rule 106 as well, and there's no reason to
assume that "permitted" changes meaning between paragraphs of the same
rule. Compare CFJ 1990, which explains that these things must be taken
on a case-by-case basis; thus "permitted" may well have a different
meaning elsewhere in the ruleset (although based on Murphy's arguments,
is probably used consistently as it is). Thus, I don't think the
caller's arguments are relevant here; but I come to the same conclusion
on a different basis