Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3140

==============================  CFJ 3140  ==============================

    If, during a Holiday, the CotC assigns a judge to a judicial
    case other than emself, the CotC has violated rule 1769.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  The Person Formerly Known As
                                        441344
Judgement:                              FALSE

Judge:                                  The Person Formerly Known As
                                        441344
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       02 Jan 2012 05:32:15 GMT
Assigned to The Person Formerly Known As 441344:
                                        05 Feb 2012 21:14:38 GMT
Judged FALSE by The Person Formerly Known As 441344:
                                        06 Feb 2012 21:24:04 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Murphy:    07 Feb 2012 05:50:38 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Yally:     07 Feb 2012 06:06:11 GMT
Reconsideration requested by ehird:     07 Feb 2012 14:24:09 GMT
Assigned to The Person Formerly Known As 441344:
                                        07 Feb 2012 17:30:57 GMT
Judged FALSE by The Person Formerly Known As 441344:
                                        13 Feb 2012 22:50:35 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

The relevant part of rule 1769 seems to apply the SHALL NOT
to the judge, not to the player who does the assignment. This is
probably buggy, and a little weird, but is the best testcase of this
I've seen (rather better than attempting to submit players as evidence
on a judicial case, or as proposals with the wrong II, or whatever).

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

this excerpt from rule 1769: "judges SHALL NOT be assigned to
any judicial case"

========================================================================

Judge The Person Formerly Known As 441344's Arguments:

The rule does apply the "SHALL NOT" to the judge who "[is] assigned to
any judicial case". I judge case 3140 FALSE and case 3141 TRUE.

========================================================================

Request for reconsideration by Murphy:

The literal reading behind these
judgements blames the judge for something out of eir control; the
less literal reading ("the assigner of judges SHALL NOT assign judges")
avoids that problem, and is reasonably obvious to infer.

========================================================================

Judge The Person Formerly Known As 441344's Arguments:

The new arguments do not seem to be relevant. There is no rule that
prevents rules from making acts that the actor cannot control illegal,
and rule 1504(e) suggests that this can happen and nullifies the
problem of people being punished for acts they could not have avoided.
I once again judge case 3140 FALSE and case 3141 TRUE.

========================================================================