CFJ 29 (Wes)
 
   The Title of a Proposal does not become part of the Rule, should that
Proposal Create or Amend a Rule.
 
We would request that the following justification be sent to the Judge:
 
105.  A Rule Change is any of the following:  (1) the enactment, repeal,
      or amendment of a mutable Rule; or (2) the transmutation
      of an immutable Rule into a mutable Rule or vice versa.
        (Note:  This definition implies that, at least initially, all new
      Rules are Mutable; Immutable Rules, as long as they are Immutable,
      may not be Amended or Repealed; Mutable Rules, as long as they are
      Mutable, may be Amended or Repealed; any Rule of any status may be
      Transmuted; no Rule is absolutely immune to change.)
 
107.  Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise
      communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it
      must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.
 
109.  The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule Change a Number for
      reference.  The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Rule Change
      proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive
      integer, whether or not the Proposal is adopted.
        If a Rule is Repealed and Reenacted, it receives the Number of the
      Proposal to Reenact it.  If a Rule is Amended or Transmuted, it
      receives the Number of the Proposal to Amend or Transmute it.
 
319.  Informative Titles for Proposals:
      Every Proposal submitted to the Speaker must be headed with a Title.
 
Rule 105 clearly points out that there is a difference between a Rule
Change and a Rule. A Proposal is simply a proposed Rule Change, as implied
by Rules 107 and 109, which use the two terms interchangeably, as well as
through eNomic custom. 
 
Therefore, we would like to indicate that he Title of the Proposal should
not become part of the Title of any Rule created or modified by the Proposal.
 
JUDGE
Ronald Kunne <KUNNE@frcpn11.in2p3.fr>

> I judge this statement to be FALSE.
> 
> Justification:
> According to Rule 107 a proposed Rule Change (or Proposal, the two are
> equivalent) if adopted
> "must guide play in the form in which it was voted on."
> The word "form" is crucial. According to Rule 319 this "form" includes
> the title, as
> "Every Proposal submitted to the Speaker must be headed with a Title."
> The Title of the adopted Rule must therefore guide play as well the body.
> Therefore the Title of a Proposal is part of that Proposal and,
> if adopted, does therefore become part of the new Rule as well.
> 
> Note: This Judge does not see the relevance of the justification of
> the CFJ as given by the Caller.
> 
> Consequence of this Judgement:
> As the Title of Rule 319 makes part of the Rule itself,
> it is not sufficient for a Proposal to have a Title to make it a proper
> Proposal in the sense of Rule 109.
> A proper Proposal should always have an *Informative* Title.
> 
> Rules referenced:
> 107. Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise
>      communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it
>      must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.
> 109. The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule Change a Number for
>      reference.  The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Rule Change
>      proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive
>      integer, whether or not the Proposal is adopted.
>      If a Rule is Repealed and Reenacted, it receives the Number of the
>      Proposal to Reenact it.  If a Rule is Amended or Transmuted, it
>      receives the Number of the Proposal to Amend or Transmute it.
> 319. Informative Titles for Proposals:
>      Every Proposal submitted to the Speaker must be headed with a Title.

{ This CFJ was appealed by Wes. The appeal judges were: }

As per 384, an Appeal Court is hereby set up:

JUSTICES
Dave Bowen <dmb@fig.cray.com>
The Ed Blevins <thedward@wixer.bga.com>
David Cogen <cogen@ll.mit.edu>

{ Ed Blevins failed to respond to the call to Judge this appeal, was
penalised 10 points, and replaced by David Wagner on 13/9/93. }

{ David Cogen's verdict was: }

> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 16:19:19 -0400
> From: cogen@ll.mit.edu (David Cogen)
> Message-Id: <9309161619.AA18994@LL.MIT.EDU>
> To: Alexx@world.std.com
> Subject: a Decision on the CFJ 29 Appeal

> On the appeal of CFJ 29,
> 
> I decide to OVERRULE JUDGEMENT.
> 
> Reasoning: By 319, a Proposal is "headed" with a title. It is not
> part of the proposal. The rules are not specific on this, so I am
> going with common sense.  If the title of a proposal is "Amend xxx"
> we don't want the title of rule xxx to change to "Amend xxx". We
> want to keep the original title. For a creates-a-rule type of
> proposal, we want the rule to get the title of the proposal, but
> this is done by the Rulekeepor as a convenience, not because of any
> legal requirement.
> 
> Comments: Although not required, it would be unfortunate if the
> Rulekeepor stopped the practice of keeping the title in the rule
> set, as it is very handy to have this mnemonic convenience. I would
> support legislation to require that when a creates-a-rule proposal
> passes, the rule is annotated with the title of the proposal, and
> when an amends-a-rule proposal passes, the title is left alone,
> unless specified otherwise by the amendment.