CFJ 1116

  The VT Payment Order labeled "RVTPO 822" in message "Message-Id:
  199902031535.qaa0783-@wsinfm15.win.tue.nl Subject: OFF: Officer
  Salaries" (salary paid to Justiciar Crito) was improperly executed.


Called by:           Crito

Judge:               Murphy
Judgement:           FALSE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Chuck, elJefe, Kolja. A, Morendil, Murphy, Peekee, 
                     Steve, Vlad

Not eligible:
Caller:              Crito
Barred:              Andre
Had their turn:      Ørjan, Macross, Blob, General Chaos
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             Ørjan, lee



  Called by Crito:                         Thu, 04 Feb 1999 13:38:42 -0500
  Assigned to Murphy:                      Fri, 05 Feb 1999 23:04:48 +1100
  Judged FALSE by Murphy:                  Tue, 09 Feb 1999 01:05:56 -0800
  Judgement published:                     as of this message

Caller's Arguments:

R910 states "The Justiciar does not receive a fixed weekly salary."
R1007 states "Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office
              shall be equal to the Basic Salary."

I contend that the above statement in R910 constitutes a specification
of the salary for the Justiciar.  Because the (lack of) salary is
specified in R910, the above statement in R1007 prevents it from setting
the salary of the Justiciar to the Basic Salary.  I should remind the
Judge that if e were to find this CFJ TRUE, e must then vacate the
referenced Payment Order.

Judge's Arguments:

I Judge the statement FALSE.  "X does not exist" is not equivalent to "X
is zero".  For a concrete example, consider these hypothetical Rules:

     Rule 3000A
     The Justiciar's Salary is zero VTs.

     Rule 3000B
     The Justiciar's Salary is one VT.

Clearly 3000A and 3000B conflict.  But the relevant clause of 910/6 does
not conflict with 3000B, so it cannot be equivalent to 3000A.