Rule #17 (submitted by Counselor PSS) and Rule #18 (by Counselor V.J.
Rada) present the Court with a broader question:  are "submission
statements" (e.g. "I submit the following arguments") part of the
arguments, or separate?

If submission statements are separate, then Counselor PSS's rule would
be VALID.  For e published a text with no direct submission statement,
and than later quoted the same text with "I classify this as being on
the first docket." This could be taken (rather generously on The Court's
part) as a submission statement, and the whole rule wouldn't have been
considered submitted before that submission statement, which included the
Docket.  After all, in G.A.N. Agora, we wouldn't blink twice if someone
quoted a previously-published body of text and wrote "I submit the
following body of text as a proposal."  

On the other hand, Counselor V.J. Rada's arguments would be INVALID, as
the m1zzp3ll1ng (ugh) would be "outside" the arguments, and Rule #7
requires the damaged spelling to be "in" their arguments.

However, if submission statements are considered *part* of the arguments,
then Counselor PSS's submission would be INVALID, as This Court
maintains that a rule must be submitted as a singular "body of text
intended to become a rule" in the words of Tournament Regulation #1, and
not split over messages.  So eir first body of text would be taken to be
a whole, submitted rule and INVALID due to missing a docket. 

And in that case, Counselor V.J. Rada's would be VALID, as the 40rr18le
text in Rule #18 (Eris help us) would be part of the arguments.

The tradition is mixed.  This Court's Clerk is inconsistent, in that
sometimes submission statements are included in the record (e.g. Rule
#4) and sometimes not (e.g. Rule #6)[*].  Counselors are also
inconsistent about whether their "flavor" starts within the submission
statement or after.

This Court has considered carefully, and the decision lies in Fantasy
Rule #1, which reads in part:  "all rules and pronouncements we see, in
the form of arguments shall be."  By this, "pronouncements" would
include submission statements, which are thus part of the "arguments".  

Thus, Rule #17 (by Counselor PSS) was INVALID, and Rule #18 (by
Counselor V.J. Rada) was VALID.  The short but straightforward text of
Rule #18 is granted 1.0 Style.  Going forward, This Court shall ensure
that eir Clerk is more consistent in eir task.

[*] Evidence:

Reply via email to