CFJ 878

"Rule 1322 should be interpreted such that the term 'Mutation Index'
 is a synonym for 'Mutability Index'."


Judge:       Andre
Justices:    Michael (CotC), Steve (J), and elJefe (S)

Judgement:   TRUE

Eligible:    Andre, Chuck, Coren, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael,
             Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Xanadu

Not eligible:
Caller:      Zefram
Barred:      -
On hold:     -


  Called by Zefram, Sun, 22 Sep 1996 04:53:14 +0100 (BST)
  Assigned to Andre, Fri, 27 Sep 1996 09:47:39 +0100
  Judged FALSE by Andre, Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:53:56 +0200 (MET DST)
  Published, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 10:49:04 +0100
  Appeal called for by Morendil, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:11:32 +0100
  Appeal called for by Oerjan, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 17:42:13 +0100 (MET)
  Appeal called for by Swann, Fri, 4 Oct 1996 19:23:48 -0400
  Justices assigned, Sun, 6 Oct 1996 13:02:55 +0100
  Appelate decision from Steve, Mon, 7 Oct 1996 15:38:19 +1000 (EST)
  Appelate decision from elJefe, Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:54:07 +0000
  Appelate decision from Michael, Sun, 13 Oct 1996 13:02:55 +0100
  Final decision published, Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:56:28 +0100


Justice elJefe:

I judge TRUE, overturning Judge Andre's judgement.

1.) There is no sensible way to interpret the Rules without taking
these quite similar terms to have the same meaning.

2.) There is precedent in an earlier CFJ (can't quite recall which,
and I no longer have my extensive collection of CFJs) that assigned
meaning to words which were not defined in the Rules, but which were
obvious linguistic derivations of terms which were so defined.

I request that the Rulekeepor annotate Rule 1322 to this effect.  This
is not an Injunction, as nowadays Boards of Appeal (it seems) cannot
issue injunctions.

-- elJefe, Justice of the Board of Appeals of Agora Nomic


Justice Steve:

In the matter of the Appeal of CFJ 878, I overturn Andre's Judgement
and return a Judgement of TRUE. While I agree with Judge Andre that
R1322 does not indicate that the two phrases are synonymous, I
disagree with him about what it would take for two terms to be
interpreted synonymously. Judge Andre's list is at least
incomplete. (It may also be incorrect in that his third criterion is
debatable, but that need not concern us here.) It is my judgement that
the existence of extensive game custom which interprets two terms
synonymously is also sufficient for the synonymity of the terms, other
things being equal. In the particular case at hand, game custom
certainly has it that the two terms do not differ in meaning. This
should not surprise, for it is hard to make sense of R1322 without
interpreting 'Mutation Index' and 'Mutability Index' synonyously, to
the point where it is tempting to say that the appearance of 'Mutation
Index' in the Rule is little more than a typographical error with no
effect on meaning.


Justice Michael:

As the other Justices have pointed out, there is no sensible way to
interpret the two terms used in 1322 without concluding that their use
is as synonyms.  Support for this is also present in R105/0, where
both terms are effectively equated.

Therefore I overturn Judge Andre's decision, and call for the
Judgement to be reversed.


Original Judge's Arguments:

At no place in Rule 1322 it gives any indication that these two are

Not to make these arguments too short I'll issue the subject of when
these two were synonymous.

1. If 'Mutation' and 'Mutability' had been synonyms, then 'Mutability
   Index' and 'Mutation Index' had been synonymous UNLESS some Rule
   said or implied they were not.
2. If a Rule explicitly or implicitly says they are the same, then of
   course they are synonymous
3. If the Rules implied that at all times (as long as the Rules hadn't
   changed) the indices had the same value for all Entities for which
   any of them has a value, then, in my opinion, they would be
   synonymous too.

However, the value of Mutation Indices is not regulated by the Rules,
and the best explanation now is, that Rule 1011 now says that a Rule
HAS NO Mutation Index. Through a strange quirk of language this still
keeps Rule 1322 sensible: We just have to accept that 'if any' means
'if the Rule has any Mutation Index'.



Rule 1011/3 (Semimutable, MI=2)
Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed

      A "Nomic Property" is any property of any entity which that
      entity possesses solely by the virtue of the Rules defining that

      No Nomic Property shall be changed except in accordance with
      procedures specified by the Rules.


Rule 1021/4 (Mutable, MI=1)
Mutability Indices

      Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that
      Rule's Mutability Index.  The Mutability Index of a Rule is a
      part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the
      application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can
      change a Rule's Mutability Index.

      The Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it
      is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do
      so does not have legal effect.

      A Rule whose Mutability Index is 1 is known as a "Mutable" Rule.
      All other Rules are known as "Semimutable" Rules.


Rule 1322/2 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Effectiveness of Rule Changes

      Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called
      its Power, which determines its ability to take effect.

      The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability
      Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.

      The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index
      of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.

      No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than
      the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if
      any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after
      the change, if any.


(Caller's) Arguments:

The relevant Rules are 1021 and 1322.