On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> [Nichdel: do you want to be on the list of judges?]
>
> CFJ 3430
> is hereby assigned to ais523.
Arguments:
If Rule 2429 does lead to rules having extremely ambiguous meanings,
then Rule 217 says:
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takesprecedence.Wherethetextissilent,inconsistent,orunclear,itistobeaugmentedbygamecustom,commonsense,pastjudgements,andconsiderationofthebestinterestsofthegame.Definitionsandprescriptionsintherulesareonlytobeappliedusingdirect,forwardreasoning;inparticular,anabsurditythatcanbeconcludedfromtheassumptionthatastatementaboutrule-definedconceptsisfalsedoesnotconstituteproofthatitistrue.Definitionsinlower-poweredRulesdonotoverrulecommon-senseinterpretationsorcommondefinitionsoftermsinhigher-poweredrules.Rulestothecontrarynotwithstanding,anyrulechangethatwould(1)preventapersonfrominitiatingaformalprocesstoresolvemattersofcontroversy,inthereasonableexpectationthatthecontroversywilltherebyberesolved;or(2)preventapersonfromcausingformalreconsiderationofanyjudicialdeterminationthateshouldbepunished,
is wholly void and without effect.
Disregarding the absolute nonsense in the middle of the rule, it's
clear that the text of rules should just be ignored.
-scshunt
