spoon-business: CFJ 284 judgement

[Rob Speer <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CFJ 284 reads:
---
  CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are
  not regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the
  following:

  "Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each
  proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of
  voting.  Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player
  entities may only vote as specified by the rules. No rule specifies
  how a non-player entity should vote."

  In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is
  performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed
  under any other circumstances.

  Yet, CFJ 249, that certain proposals that didn't use the Standard
  Delimiters from rule 217, was also judged false; the analysis included
  the following:

  "Rule 217 merely defines the standard delimeters; nowhere does it
  require that they are used."

  In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given
  action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not
  prevented from being performed under any other circumstances.

  These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
  invalid.
---

I judge the statement to be FALSE.

Analysis: 

There is no reason to believe the judgements to be contradictory. The
justification given does not apply to CFJ 249, because Rule 217 does not
state how an action is performed. It states what certain character
sequences mean, and even includes the phrase "in Actions where they
appear", allowing for the possibility that they might not appear.

-- 
Rob Speer