CFJ 880

"Rule 755 should be interpreted such that there are no Patent
 Titles known as Winners' Cups."


Judge:       Swann

Judgement:   FALSE

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

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


  Called by Zefram, Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:51:45 +0100 (BST)
  Assigned to Swann, Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:23:33 +0100
  Judged FALSE, Tue, 22 Oct 1996 17:54:50 -0400 (EDT)
  Published, Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:58:27 +0100


Judgement: FALSE

Reasons and arguments:

There is no established procedure for dealing with selfcontradictory,
or inconsistent Rules.  Adoption of a truly paradoxical Rule would, in
fact, cause some legal difficulty.  However, the current state of 755
does not create a paradox, the problem with 755 is that it states an
untruth.  This is a problem of a much lesser order.

There is a fundamental difference between descriptive passages in the
Rules and prescriptive ones.  The latter are the passages that create
and define Nomic Entities, their properties, and the procedures we use
to deal with them.  The former are passages that simply report facts,
but do not create them.  Since purely descriptive passages are rare in
the Ruleset, the two can be confused.  But a good definition of a
purely descriptive passage is a phrase that asserts something is true
when it does not have, or claim to have, the power to compel the truth
or falsity of what it claims.  A good example is in the Virus Rule,
Rule 1454;

"The Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules
for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes."

This phrase is a restatement of facts imposed by the precedence of
Rules dealing with non-proposed Rule Changes.  As the Rules stand,
this phrase compels nothing.

A purer form of a descriptive passage is a hypothetical rule that
contains the phrase; "This Rule has one-hundred words in it."  What
would infection by the Virus do to this Rule?  I assert that it would
do nothing but render the descriptive passage false.  There is nothing
in the Rules that forbids the presence of patent falsehoods in the
Rules, nor is there any precedent for voiding a Rule that contains
such a falsehood.  Nor is there any mechanism wherein we are forced to
manipulate the Ruleset to make such statements true.

Now, in the case of the Rule in question, it says;

"There are 16 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list
of which is defined in this Rule."

The first half of the sentence, up to the second comma, is obviously
prescriptive.  It asserts a fact that, as its presence in an MI=1
Rule, it has the power to compel the truth of-- specifically the fact
that there are 16 different cups.  The latter half is obviously
descriptive, since it asserts something which it cannot control,
i.e. the contents of the remainder of the Rule.

Therefore, it is the Judge's opinion that there are indeed Winners'
Cups, (the Statement is FALSE) that there are sixteen of them, and
thirteen of which are defined in Rule 755.

(Caller's) Arguments:

The Relevant Rule is 755.  My reasoning is that the first paragraph of
Rule 755/5 states that there are 16 different Cups, and states that
the Rule lists all of them, but the Rule only in fact lists 13 Cups.
It is thus internally inconsistent, and cannot be meaningfully