status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4002
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4002 ===============================
Destructor is part of Cannon's pull.
==========================================================================
Caller: ais523
Judge: snail
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by ais523: 15 Jan 2023 18:48:31
Assigned to snail: 17 Jan 2023 15:39:08
Judged TRUE by snail: 22 Jan 2023 21:40:09
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
ais523 wrote:
> I pay 1 hoof to get a jersey for Cannon and add Destructor to Cannon's
> pull.
exerpt from R2672: "get a jersey for a specified horse, also
specifying a horse to be added to that horse's pull, by paying 1 hoof."
Caller's Arguments:
Does specifying a horse to be added to another horse's pull
actually do the addition? Specifying a value is something that players
can do independently of any action and it doesn't normally have side
effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge snail's Arguments:
Specification having an effect in a similar way can be seen in Rule 991
(Calls for Judgement):
Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ,
syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into by
announcement.
This specification has the effect of tying the statement to the CFJ
initiated, as the rules rely on this connection:
(Excerpt of Rule 591, Delivering Judgements)
The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically false.
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically true.
Admittedly this is a different effect, tying the statement to the CFJ vs.
adding a horse to a set of horses switch, but both effects come about the
same way: implicitly.
There are examples of explicitly stating the specifications to have a more
defined, explicit effect:
Rule 2644/5 (Power=2)
Zen Gardening
A player CAN, by announcement, Notice the Rock Garden, *specifying
a single player that owns 8 or more stones*, provided that no
person has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days.
*When the Rock Garden is Noticed, the specified player wins the
game.* If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then
all existing stones are transferred to Agora.
Rule 2465/1 (Power=0.3)
Victory by Apathy
A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of
players. Upon doing so, the specified players win the game, except
for those who have won the game through this Rule in the past 14
days.
But there's also this:
Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
generally:
1. enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to
one if the enacting instrument does not specify or if it
specifies a power less than 0.1, and the maximum power
permitted by other rules.
*The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new rule,
which if present shall prevail.*
This implicitly modifies a substantive aspect of the enacted rule, a pretty
powerful implicit specification effect.
So to address the caller's arguments directly:
Does specifying a horse to be added to another horse's pull
actually do the addition?
Yes, as the intended effect is apparent and a potential reading of the rule.
Specifying a value is something that players
can do independently of any action and it doesn't normally have side
effects.
The fact the side effect is written into the rule, and into the
specification, makes this an unusual case where the specification along
with the action combines to give this additional effect.
"Specifying a horse to be added to that horse's pull" has the same meaning
as "specifying a horse that is added to that horse's pull", especially
considering in the context there is no other way for the horse to be added
to the pull aside from in that instance. If we are to believe the rules,
then this addition must occur here.
If it could go either way, it also would be in the game's best interest to
judge this TRUE to allow existing rules to continue to act with small
implicit powers that makes things run smoothly, rather than search for
every instance and replace it with explicit wording.
I judge CFJ 4002 TRUE.
==========================================================================
