==============================  CFJ 1335  ==============================

    The Notice of Speaker Transition issued Sat, 8 Dec 2001 was
    incorrect in its particulars.

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

Caller:                                 Crito

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Crito:                        12 Dec 2001 19:52:30 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         21 Dec 2001 08:23:25 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      04 Jan 2002 19:45:42 GMT
Appealed by neil:                       10 Jan 2002 18:46:14 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

This Notice claimed that Steve was the holder of the Office of
Speaker-Elect. However, because Michael was first in the order of
succession during the last Transition, e held the Office of S-E
beginning on 15 Nov.

Although Michael attempted to decline this position, e did not do so
until AFTER 20 Nov, by which point neil had already been made Electee to
the Office of S-E. The provisions for changing the holder of this Office
stipulate that they only take effect whenever there is no Electee to
that Office. Therefore it became impossible for Michael to decline that
position after 20 Nov. This would mean that Michael held the Office of
S-E at the time of the Notice, not Steve.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

To be "correct in its particulars", Rule 402/9(ii) requires a Notice of
Speaker Transition (NoST) to contain two distinct elements:
     Element (1): the reason for the transition; and
     Element (2): the Player who held the office of Speaker-elect at the
                  time the transition commenced.

Here is the Relevant portion of Neil's message of Sat, 8 Dec 2001:

> As GWotO:
>
> The current Speaker is Tainted, and there is an Electee to the Office
> of Speaker-Elect.  By Rule 1648, this triggers a Speaker Transition as
> described in R402.
>
> Notice of Speaker Transition:
>   A Speaker Transition has begun.  At the commencement of the
>   Transition, Steve held the Office of Speaker-Elect.
>
> Assuming the particulars of the Notice are correct, Steve ceases to
> hold the Office of Speaker-Elect and becomes the Speaker.

In terms of Element (1), while the message as a whole identifies the
reason for the Speaker Transition, ("the current Speaker is Tainted"), the
portion of the message specifically labeled "Notice of Speaker Transition"
does not contain this information.  The question is, then, can the NoST
itself be construed to contain this information?

Case FOR: The subject line of the whole message is "Notice of Speaker
Transition."  This overrides the smaller subset of text which attempts to
delimit the NoST, and therefore the whole message is an NoST.  The other
actions in the message ("as ADoP" etc.) are not necessary for the NoST but
are in fact part of it.  This is also less nitpicky, the information is in
the message and this Court generally preferred less nitpicky
interpretations of Actions.

Case AGAINST: The internal delimitation has precedence, and only two
sentences of the message are the actual NoST.  This is rather like a
Proposal which has "Proposal" in the subject heading but contains other
actions (for example, submitting the Proposal) before the delimited
portion of the Proposal itself.

In many and even most cases, this Court should and would take the less
nitpicky approach; that since the message as a whole contains the
information, the information should be deemed to be part of the Notice.
However, several of the other Actions performed in the message ("As ADoP",
etc.) clearly were meant to happen BEFORE and AFTER the Notice was issued.
This is further evidenced by the rest of the message, which contains
phrases such as "...the above Notice..."

Therefore the Notice should be taken to explicitly begin at the internal
Title and explictly end after the indentation changes to indicate the end
of the delimitation, and as such, does not contain information on Element
(1), the reason for the transition.

Therefore, The Court returns a judgement of TRUE.

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

Judge G.'s Evidence:

Rule 402/9 (Power=1)
Speaker Transition

      Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time
      the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which
      proceeds as follows:

      (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses
      all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result
      of being Speaker;

      (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,
      the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall publish a Notice of
      Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition
      and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time
      the Transition commenced;

      (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is
      correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice
      causes the Player identified in it to cease being the
      Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes
      the process of Speaker Transition.

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

Appellant neil's Arguments:

CFJ 1335, judged TRUE, alleges that this Notice was not correct in its
particulars.  It appears that Appeal 1332a will indicate that this
Notice was, in fact, correct in its particulars.  I call for an appeal
of the Judgement of CFJ 1335.

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