==============================  CFJ 1776  ==============================

    It is possible to deputise for the purpose of changing all sitting
    players to standing

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

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by omd:                          01 Nov 2007 02:21:02 GMT
Assigned to root:                       01 Nov 2007 10:47:50 GMT
Judged TRUE by root:                    06 Nov 2007 23:56:59 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

While it seems that the CotC is indirectly required to perform that action
(else he can't assign any judges, which he is required to do), and it
could be argued that it is therefore possible to deputise for that
indirect requirement (my attempted deputisation would still be illegal as
I did not try to assign all judges first), proposals are another method
for making players standing.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1871/20 (Power=1.5)
The Standing Court
      The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by
      announcement.  The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a
      judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all
      entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e
      immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a
      judge to that case.

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

Judge root's Arguments:

Suppose that, in a criminal case, the CotC is correctly charged with
failing to assign a judge to a case within the time limit.  Suppose
further that the CotC's defense is that e could not assign a judge
because, while there were several qualified sitting judges, there were
none who were standing.  Such a case could have two possible outcomes
(ignoring the exceptional ones): EXCUSED or GUILTY.

The EXCUSED judgement would be appropriate if the CotC could not have
avoided breaching the rules, the GUILTY judgement otherwise.  Clearly,
in this scenario, the CotC could have avoided breaching the rules
simply by performing a judicial rotation, and so the GUILTY judgement
would be appropriate.  This suggests that, because the CotC CAN and
MAY change sitting players to standing in order to assign judges, e in
fact must (but not MUST) do so.

However, e need not do it in that manner; as the Initiator points out,
a rotation could also be performed by proposal.  To generalize, as
long as the the CotC has *some* ability that would enable em to meet
the requirement, e is required to make a reasonable effort to actually
use at least one such ability.

I find that this requirement is sufficient to meet terms (a) and (b)
of Rule 2160, and I judge TRUE accordingly.

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

Judge root's Evidence:

Rule 2160/1 (Power=1)
Deputisation

      Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
      particular office (deputise for that office) if:

      (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
          holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
          office is vacant, would so require if the office were
          filled); and

      (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
          performed has expired; and

      (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
          that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes
          of the particular action; and

      (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
          other than by deputisation, if e held the office.

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