CFJ Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:44:13 -0700 (PDT)

Called by Goethe

Statement:
The Proposal "Motions to deregister players" has been
distributed and has Proposal Number 329.

Arguments:
Rule 109 is self-contradictory in the case of the recent
Speaker error.  It first reads:
    "The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule change a
     number for reference."
but later it reads:
    "each Rule change proposed in the proper way shall
     receive the next successive integer"

In the case that the Speaker gives a non-successive number
to a Proposal, does one clause dominate or has the proposal
not been distributed?

Judgement: TRUE (published Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:39:25 +0200 (CEST)).

Judge's commentary: 
I judge this CFJ to be true. This is exactly how I was hoping to
address the problem; formalizing this via a CFJ and a clear judgement
is a nice way of recording this.