- 384(0) conflicts with 461(0)
- 384(0) does not conflict with 461(0)
384 and 461 are, respectively, "With Dusty Bin" and "Without Dusty Bin".
Owen, as Rule Clerk, records that the two rules conflict so, 384 being immutable and 461 being mutable, 384 takes precedence and 461 is inapplicable.
I disagree with this interpretation. Neither "rule" makes any assertion, so I do not consider it possible that there can be a contradiction.
By the interpretation that there in one, one may as well say that the English language, or the dictionary, is logically inconsistent on the grounds that both "possible" and "impossible" are words. (Of course, the English language is inconsistent in many ways - in grammar, orthography, and pronunciation - but not logical, in my opinion.)
The Judge selected was Colin Batchelor.
384(0) does not conflict with 461(0).
Owen Massey has it arsy-versy, I think, or Terry Boon has Owen Massey's interpretation misunderstood. He (Owen) writes:
[This rule conflicts with Rule 384(0); 384(0) is immutable and therefore takes precedence over 461(0).]
but this only applies if there is a conflict as laid down in 111(0):
111(0) In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not "conflict" with that immutable rule.
The game doesn't define a "conflict", but I think it's clear that the sentences "384(0) with Dusty Bin" and "461(0) without Dusty Bin" conflict no more than "Surrey with a fringe on top" and "Berkshire without a fringe on top" do.
If we had a rule with a number 384(0) in addition to the present one which said "384(0) without Dusty Bin" then there would be a conflict. I wonder what happens if I make the following Proposal (not a Fast-Tracker):
P57 What's without Dusty Bin? 384(0) without Dusty Bin.
The Proposal failed.