This does need fixing, but it needs an actual change to the ruleset to fix it, not an unwritten agreement of “Ice and Iron maybe aren’t really defined as Substances so let’s not bother defining Unidentified Material either”.

I would argue that this is an accurate interpretation of the current ruleset, not an unwritten agreement. I also would argue that this doesn’t need fixing (beyond possibly putting the first paragraph of this CfJ into the ruleset, possibly, but I don’t know that even that is necessary.)

Since Substances are never enumerated, if a term isn’t used already in the game, it is perfectly valid to say “This was a Substance all along and we didn’t use it yet.” Perhaps this isn’t something that we want in our rules (I personally think that the ability to make Substances on the fly is a good thing) but as the rules stand, the very existence of a Container of “Unidentified Material” is enough to make Unidentified Material a Substance.

In the end, if you want this concept fixed, by all means propose something new, but the current ruleset allows Meteor Shower to work as expected. This isn’t an unwritten agreement—this is, as far as I can see, the only way of justifying our current Substances’ existence without changing the ruleset.

We fire up a CfJ when “two or more Shuttles actively disagree as to the interpretation of the Ruleset”. Such a problem can be resolved informally if a persuasive discussion reaches an agreement, without having to change anything; it can also be resolved by changing an ambiguous clause in the ruleset so that only one interpretation can now be reached.

If you’re intending this as a straw poll for whether people think the current ruleset implies that saying “look, a Container containing Unidentified Material” makes U.M. into a Substance, it looks as if I (and maybe Bucky) don’t agree with that reading. So this will need an actual fix. I’ll put a proposal up.

Ok, thanks for clearing up when a CfJ should be used. Thank you for handling this situation the way I should have. :)