CFJ 920

"Rule 114 should be interpreted such that a change to the rules such
 that they instantaneously thereafter do not permit modification of
 the rules is not prevented from occurring by Rule 114 if it leaves
 the gamestate such that after some definite finite or infinitesemal
 time interval the rules will again change such that the gamestate
 then satisfies Rule 114's condition."


Judge:        Antimatter

Judgement:    TRUE

Eligible:     Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, favor,
              General Chaos, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan,
              Steve, Swann, Vanyel

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


  Called by Zefram, Thu, 10 Apr 1997 18:35:42 +0100 (BST)
  Assigned to Antimatter, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:43:31 +0100
  Judged TRUE, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:00:02 -0800
  Published, Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:25:17 +0100


Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

I concur with the [caller's] reasoning. It seems clear that waiting
for any finite amount of time is indeed an player action.


Rule Interpretation Injunction Request:

I further request that eir Honour issue an Injunction as permitted by
Rule 789.  The only Relevant Rule is 114.


I am issuing an Injunction to have the Rulekeepor annotate rule 114
with the text of this CFJ and the list of relevant rules (rule 114),
in accordance with the above request.


(Caller's) Arguments:

This rather complex Statement requests you to consider circumstances
in which two Rule Changes are to occur, separated by a non-infinite
time interval.  For example, two Rule Changes within adopted Proposals
in the same batch.  Furthermore, the first Rule Change, if applied,
will make Rule Changes impossible, but the second Rule Change would
then allow Rule Changes once more.  The relevant question is ``do
these Rule Changes satisfy Rule 114's condition''?

Instantaneously, at any time between the two Rule Changes, arbitrary
modification of the rules is impossible, apparently violating 114's
condition.  But if one merely waits for the second Rule Change to
occur, then arbitrary modification is once again permitted, and Rule
114 is then satisfied.  The real question is whether ``some
combination of player actions'' may include the action of waiting for
an event to occur.  Note that the Statement is limited to the case
where the event will definitely occur, at a known time; you must
therefore ignore the possibility of a third event intervening and
preventing the event in question from occurring.

It is my opinion that this Statement should be Judged TRUE.  Not only
is waiting for a definite time interval quite clearly an action, but
it is also in the best interests of the game for it to be possible to
make extensive Rule Changes in one Proposal without having to check
that each intermediate state satisfies 114.  The opinions previously
expressed on this subject might also constitute game custom.