==============================  CFJ 1471  ==============================

    The GWotO is allowed to remove from the Oligarchy an Oligarch whose
    term of service has expired.

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

Caller:                                 OscarMeyr

Judge:                                  Steve
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by OscarMeyr:                    05 Oct 2003 14:12:45 GMT
Assigned to Steve:                      06 Oct 2003 00:09:19 GMT
Judged TRUE by Steve:                   06 Oct 2003 04:59:24 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The requirement for this action is in R1936(b), governing the expiration
of an Oligarch's service.  R1963(b) is presently interpreted as limiting
the GWotO's authority to remove Oligarchs from the Oligarchy to cases
where an Oligarch becomes ineligible under R1963(a).  Both rules are of
Power=2, and neither claim precedence over the other, so the
lower-numbered R1936 takes precedence, per R1030.

(Would the Court please pay close attention to nubmer tranpsositoins.
Thakns!)

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1030/4 (Power=3)
Precedence between Rules with Equal Power

      If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one
      another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.

      If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
      itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or
      takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
      provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
      precedence.

      If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
      precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
      determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
      the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical
      method for determining precedence.

      If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another
      or defer to one another, then the numerical method again
      governs.

Rule 1936/10 (Power=2) (only paragraph (b) is relevant)
Oligarchic Service

      (b) By default, a Player remains an Oligarch for a period of
          time equal to the Oligarchic Term.  The Grand Warden of the
          Oligarchy shall remove a Player from the Oligarchy by public
          announcement, as soon as possible after eir term expires.
          Other rules may cause Players to cease to be Oligarchs.

Rule 1963/5 (Power=2)
Eligible Oligarchs

      (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any
          of the following are true:

          (1) e is not active;
          (2) e has three or more Blots;
          (3) e is the Speaker;
          (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect;
          (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or

      (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the
          GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as
          possible.  The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by
          correctly announcing that at least one of the above
          conditions is true for that Player.  The named Player ceases
          to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO's announcement.

      (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an
          Oligarch.

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

Judge Steve's Arguments:

Essentially, I accept the Caller's argument, although a little extra
work is required to see exactly why R1963 conflicts with R1936. The
conlfict is over what procedure to follow to remove a Player from the
Oligarchy. R1963(b) states that the GWotO removes a Player from the
Oligarchy by correctly announcing that one of the conditions listed in
R1963(a) holds.  On the other hand, R1936 provides a different method --
that of public announcement -- of removing from the Oligarchy an
Oligarch whose term has expired.  R1936 wins this conflict in virtue of
its lower number.

It might seem that this interpretation plagues us with a new bug:
wouldn't any attempt to remove an Oligarch for one of the reasons listed
in R1963(a) conflict with the removal provisions of R1936 and hence be
invalid? Fortunately, the answer is no: the last sentence of R1936(b)
provides that "Other rules may cause Players to cease to be Oligarchs."

Finally, I note in passing that this case differs from the earlier case
considered in CFJ 1436. At the time of that CFJ, R1936 did not provide
an alternative mechanism for removal.

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