J(22) 7.iii.1998

Call for Judgement

Ian Snell made the following Call for Judgement:

I call for Judgement on the following two statements: Reasoning:

The condition for 315(0)'s application is the adoption or rejection of "a proposed rule". This could be interpreted as either of the above very easily, or even various other ways. Personally, I consider it to apply only to enactments, as only these fulfill the exact statement, but in the current situation of the game, it could be more broadly interpreted. Either way, I suggest a Fast-Track Proposal from the Judge to clarify matters, and preferably to bring 315 in line with current game custom, which is to interpret it broadly. I also suggest that no score changes be made if the Judgement deems that any such score changes should not have been made.


The Judge selected was Robin Hood. This was wrong. A better judge was Simon Cozens, who delivered the following:

I agree with Ian that 315(0) applies only to enactments of new rules. However, any proposals that are accepted into the ruleset (that is, that win a vote) are enactments of new rules - EVEN IF they instantly explicitly repeal themselves, they must have been a rule at some point (otherwise they could not be repealed) and therefore 'a proposed rule is accepted.' I would also include amendments that work upon the ruleset in this category, even though it could be argued that they are not strictly thus.

Ian Collier commented:

So what was the actual answer of the CfJ?

The above sounds like odd logic. A proposal which is a repeal never exists as a rule at any time, so by the above 315 should not apply to it. Are we then to discover and reverse all of the score changes which resulted from 315 being "incorrectly" applied to appeals?

[ Judgements index | Previous | | OxNomic ]
Created 7.iii.1998, last modified 11.iii.1998 by Colin Batchelor, OxNomic Recorder