I judge CFJ 1966 FALSE, on several grounds. Firstly, R101(i) is apparently nonsensical. The word "wilt" can be used as the second person singular present tense of "will", but in the rule it is not used in the second person at all, and in any event this usage is archaic, and thus not the ordinary-language meaning. Thus we must conclude that the word in the rule means "droop" or "become flaccid". Even here, the sentence is grammatically incorrect, but generously taking it as an R754(1) synonym for "wilts", this gives every person the privilege of doing what e causes to be flaccid, which is anatomically problematic at best.
As this reasoning, while obviously sound, is likely to be seen as cause for appeal, I'll stipulate that the usage of "wilt" in R101(i) is, against all reason, actually an R754(1) synonym for the non-archaic and grammatically correct "will" or "wish" in the third person. Secondly, in its ordinary-language meaning, a "privilege" is something that someone MAY do, not something e CAN do. Thus, there is no conflict between R101(i) and R105; R101(i) allows that persons MAY do whatever they CAN, provided they wish to do so, but does not give such persons the power to do the IMPOSSIBLE. By R105, it's IMPOSSIBLE to change the rules except by the mechanisms in that rule itself, and only a rule stating that a person CAN change them otherwise would be in conflict. Thirdly, if the above doesn't convince everyone, I assert that at the very best it's unclear that a "privilege" implies a CAN, so by R217 both a strong game custom in both Agora and nomics in general and the best interests of the game validate the interpretation that we shouldn't imply such a CAN unless explicitly told to do so by the rules; otherwise the rules could be distilled to R101(i), the rest thrown out, and the game concluded. --Wooble
