==============================  CFJ 1990  ==============================

    The CotC CAN assign a poorly qualified player to judge a case.

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

Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by root:                         07 Jun 2008 19:26:27 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                08 Jun 2008 07:09:36 GMT
Judged TRUE by Machiavelli:             13 Jun 2008 14:52:31 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

By Rule 1868, the CotC CAN assign a qualified judge to a
case if it requires one and has no judge assigned.  The action of
assigning a judge is therefore regulated by both R2125(c) and
R2125(e), both of which stipulate that the action CANNOT be performed
except as allowed by the rules.  Rule 1868 also stipulates that the
CotC SHALL not assign as judge an entity who is poorly qualified to
judge the case.  Since R1868 makes it possible but does not allow it,
R2125(c) and R2125(e) both stipulate that the action is in fact
impossible.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2125 (Power=3)

      An action is regulated if:

        a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.

        b) It is ILLEGAL.

        c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while
           certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action CANNOT
           be performed except as allowed by the rules.

        d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
           certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action MAY NOT
           be performed except as allowed by the rules.

        e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for
           which some player is required to be a recordkeepor.  Such
           an action CANNOT modify that information except as allowed
           by the rules.

        f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated,
           and has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:

"Allowed" may need to be interpreted as, in some cases, being possible
because of and, in others, being permitted because of. ("The pipes
allow water to enter your house"; "The law allows the police officer
to search your vehicle"... "The law allows people to put liens on your
property, but they may be liable if the liens are not legitimate"???)
Assigning a judge to a judicial case is not inherently possible
because judicial cases and their properties are rule-defined entities
and thus cannot be changed for the purposes of the rules except when a
rule makes it possible. (Some related actions are inherently possible,
of course, like announcing such an assignment and publishing a
document that purports to be an official report reflecting such an
assignment. None of these actions, however, have any inherent effect
on the rule-defined state of the rule-defined entity.) Therefore, it
may be reasonable to conclude that R1868 allows the CotC to assign a
qualified judge for the purposes of R2125(c) and R2125(e).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

CFJ 1990 asks if:

>    The CotC CAN assign a poorly qualified player to judge a case.

The caller, root, argues:

> By Rule 1868, the CotC CAN assign a qualified judge to a
> case if it requires one and has no judge assigned.  The action of
> assigning a judge is therefore regulated by both R2125(c) and
> R2125(e), both of which stipulate that the action CANNOT be performed
> except as allowed by the rules.  Rule 1868 also stipulates that the
> CotC SHALL not assign as judge an entity who is poorly qualified to
> judge the case.  Since R1868 makes it possible but does not allow it,
> R2125(c) and R2125(e) both stipulate that the action is in fact
> impossible.

The exact wording of this part of R1868 is "When a judicial case
requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a
qualified entity to be its judge by announcement". The action here is
assigning a qualified entity to be its judge, and the conditions are
that it requires a judge and has no judge assigned. Assigning a poorly
qualified player is in fact assigning a qualified player, if I've read
the rules right, meaning that R1868 states that the CotC CAN assign a
poorly qualified entity as judge. The rule does not need to state that
poorly qualified entities are in fact possible to assign any more than
it needs to state that non-poorly qualified entities are possible to
assign, or that qualified entities that are players are possible to
assign.

However, R1868 does indeed say that the CotC SHALL NOT assign a poorly
qualified judge, and in an exciting twist (I thought so, at least),
R2125 says, "Such an action CANNOT be performed except as allowed by
the rules." Woggle helpfully points out:

> "Allowed" may need to be interpreted as, in some cases, being possible
> because of and, in others, being permitted because of.

Since R2125 is ambiguous, we have to turn to precedent to interpret
"allowed" in this case (does anybody know of any?), or, failing that,
to the intention of the rule, which is probably to say that something
CANNOT be done unless it CAN and MAY NOT be done unless it MAY, making
the answer TRUE if there's no precedent.

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