Editing Round 9/Rulings (section)

== Ruling 28 ==

;2021-03-27 | Wotton
: (A) It's currently legal to feed your own duck with a grape.
: (B) The effect of a fruit does not always take place after the associated feeding action i.e. the effect of a fruit can make the associated feeding action legal, even if that action would be illegal otherwise.

;Ruling | Judge Random Internet Cat | OVERTURNED
: Responses:
: (A) "false".
 <blockquote>
 Fruit are items that can be fed to a duck as specified in the Feeding Ducks subrule. 
 </blockquote>
: explicitly limits the applicability of fruits in the fruit table to the following from Feeding Ducks:
 <blockquote>
 Once per voting period, a player may feed another player’s duck by announcing which duck they with to feed in #game-actions, and optionally adding one valid fruit. 
 </blockquote>
: (B) "false". Fruit can only be fed as part of an otherwise-legal feeding action, as ruled above.

;Vote Of Confidence to Overturn | Nyhilo | 2-1 in favor to overturn
: I would like to initiate a public vote of confidence to overturn this ruling.

: The second column of the Fruits table is not listed merely as the fruits' "effects" or "benefits", it is the fruits' descriptions. As such, the text of the descriptions column hold the same weight as rule text as the initial paragraph of the '''Fruits''' rule.

: If the sentence ''"You may use grapes to feed one of your own ducks instead of another's."'' was included in the initial paragraph, it would undoubtedly be accepted as an exception to the other sentence without question. Because the fruit descriptions are a part of the rule text, I argue that they also have the ability to apply any assertion they wish, including specifying exceptions to rules - other and self.