Eris wrote:
It seems to me there should be precedent for this logic.
Well, this is how precedents are created. Although, for a new
precedent to hold up probably needs a more thorough analysis than
this proto. Here are some thoughts:
Eris wrote:
> The Deckmastor keeps records on cards and (at time of CFJ)
> pending draws; therefore, pending draws are regulated.
Cite the rule that requires this.
R1677 implies a things called pending draws exist and have regulated
mechanisms for being changed. But Eris is right, the deckmastor
doesn't keep records of pending draws. So to interpret R1677, we
must fall back on a common definition of "pending draws" and the
mapping of draws -> cards in common English is compelling.
Eris wrote:
> The question is therefore, to what extent were pending draws
> regulated at time of CFJ.
Huh? A thing is either regulated or unregulated. You said it was
regulated. Where does extent enter into the discussion?
I think it's clearer to think of "what aspect" of pending draws are
regulated rathern than "what extent". For example, the granting of
draws could be regulated while the satisfying of draws could be
unregulated. I agree with you that this proto-judgement doesn't
clarify what is meant.
-Goethe
