Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2749 =================== CFJ 2749 (Interest Index = 1) ==================== If the Admiral of the Navy initiated a coup right now, and purported to give the CotC the Justiciar card when e Formed the Government, eir coup would be a chicken coup. ======================================================================== Caller: coppro Judge: Murphy Judgement: TRUE ======================================================================== History: Called by coppro: 29 Nov 2009 01:44:52 GMT Assigned to Murphy: 29 Nov 2009 17:06:04 GMT Judged TRUE by Murphy: 29 Nov 2009 17:45:47 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: R1450 prevents the CotC from owning the Justiciar card; does the failure of one part of the Formation of Government mean that the entire Formation fails? or just that that assignment fails, but a Government has still been Formed? ======================================================================== Judge Murphy's Arguments: First, was there an Admiral of the Navy at the time this case was initiated? (This was the question that inspired my recent tortoise attempt.) I believe the Dealor's report of November 14 (saying that it's me) has self-ratified, overwriting c.'s Drop Your Weapon of October 23, so we're fine on this point. Second, what does Rule 2269 have to say? There has never been a coup d'etat, so the hypothetical coup would not be a coup d'etat ("since the last coup d'etat ended" is missing its referent) nor a coup de grace, so it would be a chicken coup. TRUE. For completeness, here's my analysis of what would happen if "(or there has never been a previous coup d'etat") was inserted: * The Speaker last Formed a Government on September 1. * The Admiral (me) is not the Speaker (I think the order of succession is me, coppro, ais523, c., Tiger, making Tiger the Speaker). * R2269 would declare the coup a coup d'etat. * Now the heart of the matter: would R1450 cancel R2275's entire Formation of a Government (triggering R2270's override) or just the one transfer? R2275 uses "all" rather than "each", and contains an all-or-nothing self-ratification clause, so I would choose the former interpretation and judge TRUE anyway. * R2273 only applies to a coup de grace with a missing referent, so would not apply. ========================================================================