==============================  CFJ 2787  ==============================

    I am the judge of CFJ 2785


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Machiavelli

Judge:                                  scshunt

Judge:                                  Yally

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       26 Apr 2010 09:35:37 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                04 May 2010 13:23:56 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    08 May 2010 21:53:36 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    11 May 2010 05:20:10 GMT
scshunt recused:                        06 Jun 2010 20:57:49 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      06 Jun 2010 21:10:05 GMT
Yally recused:                          20 Jun 2010 15:49:39 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         27 Jun 2010 17:34:08 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     29 Jun 2010 00:06:22 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

In general, with the standard English meaning of the words, it is
possible to submit something to someone even after it already exists (a
document, say). Note that the rules define the "initiation" of inquiry
cases, but not the "submission", apart from rule 2246, which defines
what it means to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar. As a result, I see no
reason why it isn't possible to submit a CFJ that already exists to the

The next issue is to do with whether the terms "CotC" and "Justiciar" in
rule 2246 refer to only obligations and powers with regards to the case
that exist by virtue of the office, or to all obligations and powers of
the people who happen to hold CotC and Justiciar at the time. The second
reading seems to be the more natural one; the correct answer to "who is
the CotC" would almost certainly be "Murphy", and likewise "ais523" to
"who is the Justiciar". Nothing in the rule in question implies that the
wording applies only to "official" duties, rather than to the person
holding them. Among other weirdness, this implies that I am the judge of
the CFJ in question - despite having submitted it - because I've swapped
places with Murphy with respect to hit, and e was assigned as its judge
at the time.

Following the argument so far, I observe that after I'd submitted CFJ
2785 to the Justiciar, but before I (as the Justiciar) had accepted it,
it was the case that "the CotC CANNOT perform any duties with regards to
the case, and does not incur any obligations with regards to it".
Unfortunately, this prohibition lasts until the "time limit expires or
the Justiciar rejects the case"; the first won't happen until next week,
and the second won't happen at all (because I accepted it and can only
do one or the other). Nothing in rule 2246 implies that that particular
restriction doesn't get swapped between the CotC and Justiciar too (this
is almost certainly a bug), so as a result, I'm unable (as enforced by a
power-2 rule) to incur obligations with regards to the case, and in fact
CANNOT perform duties relevant to it for an entire week. So a literal
reading of rule 2246 implies that I CANNOT judge CFJ 2785 now, and NEED
NOT judge it - ever! (because I was protected from incurring obligations
with respect to it at the time I would have gained the obligation to
judge it.

However, it should also be noted that the precedence clause in rule 2246
is buggy; it applies only to the switching of powers and obligations
between the CotC and Justiciar, not to the protection on the CotC
incurring obligations as a result. As a result, there seems to be a
straight-up contradiction between rule 2246 (power 2) which claims that
I CANNOT and NEED NOT judge the case, and rule 2158 (power 2) which
claims that I CAN judge the case, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.
Rule 2158 would seem to win here due to having the lower ID number,
meaning that in this particular case, judgement seems to be possible.

But, there's another twist - a bug in rule 1030, which defines
precedence between rules. Rule 1030 specifically allows for /rules/ to
claim precedence over each other; but not, apparently, individual
paragraphs within rules. Rule 2246 claims precedence over rule 2158
(among several other power-2 rules) for the purpose of switching powers
and obligations, although not for the purpose of performing duties. But
the structure of rule 1030 is that one rule claiming precedence over
another (of equal power, with no contradiction, etc) means that its
provisions are used entirely to determine the precedence between the
rules, with the ID numbers left uncompared. There's therefore quite a
tension here, between rule 1030 saying that rule 2246 is responsible for
its relative precedence with rule 2158, and yet rule 2246 failing to
define it; both the resolutions of "rule 2246 takes precedence in
everything because it takes precedence in something, and the high-power
rule 1030 assumes that rules work like that", and "rule 2158 takes
precedence with respect to blocking obligations, as rule 2246 only
specifies precedence in a different case, and game tradition implies
that ID numbers should take precedence even if rule 1030 forgets to
state they do in that case" seem rather weak. I'm not sure how to
resolve this particular mess, which is why I called the CFJs. (If the
rules really do leave a precedence issue undefined, I'm not even sure
what the most appropriate judgement is. UNDECIDABLE?)


Caller's Evidence:

Excerpts from rule 2246:

A judicial case may be submitted to the Justiciar. For such a
case, the Justiciar CAN, in a timely manner and by announcement,
either accept or reject the case. Until the time limit expires
or the Justiciar rejects the case, the CotC CANNOT perform any
duties with regards to the case and does not incur any
obligations with regards to it.

If the Justiciar accepts the case, e switches places with the
CotC entirely with regards to that case; e receives all
obligations and all powers the CotC would receive, and the CotC
receives all obligations and powers the Justiciar would receive.
This includes any secondary duties required to fulfill
obligations (such as rotating the bench). This takes precedence
over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and powers
regarding a judicial case to the Clerk of the Courts or the

Excerpt from rule 2158:

When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as
possible, unless e is recused from the case before the time
limit for doing so has expired.

Excerpt from rule 1030:

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 be used to resolve the conflict, unless
they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, I accept the caller's arguments that R2246 allows an existing
judicial case to be submitted to the justiciar, regardless of where the
case is in the judicial process (open or closed, assigned already or
not).  In fact, in R2246, submitting is not creation/initiation, so a
CFJ must be initiated before it is so submitted.  Announcing "I submit
the following [new] CFJ to the justiciar" is actually a (reasonable
administrative) shorthand for "I initiate the following CFJ, then I
submit it to the justiciar" which are two separate actions in sequence,
the latter action affecting an already-existing CFJ.  This is a (perhaps
unintentional) feature and not a bug; if the CotC is part of a scam who
reveals a conspiracy during judicial assignment, any player can switch
the case over to the justiciar for the appeal.

Now, the second paragraph of R2246 speaks of what obligations and duties
the CotC or Justiciar *would* receive or exchange under certain
circumstances.  Here, I disagree with the caller.  In order for this to
apply (in the Rule's wording) to what "would" be incurred for any
[arbitrary] CotC or justiciar (instead of referring to specific players
who might also be judges), it must be read as applying only to powers
and duties that are explicitly assigned to the respective offices
(regardless of who holds them).  The precedence-claiming clause, in
particular, only claims precedence over rules assigning duties and
powers to either the CotC or Justiciar; here I read this literally, it
does *not* claim precedence over rules assigning duties and powers to
judges, even if those judges happen to be CotC or Justiciar.
Therefore, R2158 and R1868 generally take precedence, and the original
judge remains the judge while the duties that the rules associate with
the respective offices switch as intended.  Also note, that as is
precedence with offices, the switched duties and obligations follow the
justiciar position if someone else becomes the justiciar.

However, there is a rub.  If the judge happens to be the CotC, e remains
bound by this clause:
                                         "Until the time limit expires
       or the Justiciar rejects the case, the CotC CANNOT perform any
       duties with regards to the case and does not incur any
       obligations with regards to it."

Now here, Murphy, as CotC, clearly cannot perform *any* duties (even
judge's duties) with respect to the case - I agree with the caller that
this sentence, in particular, is not restricted to CotC duties.  So
during this window Murphy CANNOT judge it.  But Murphy was assigned to
be the judge of CFJ2785 *before* the case was submitted to justiciar.
And this clause does not remove previously-incurred obligations; it just
prevents new ones from being incurred.  So during this period ("time
limit or rejection", which is in fact a bug in the acceptance case as
the caller points out) Murphy is required to judge, yet CANNOT.  When
the time limit expires, e CAN judge again, or e can be recused (by the
justiciar) and the justiciar CAN (and MUST) reassign the case.
Fortunately, Murphy is protected by R1504(e) from being punished for the

These arguments lead to judgements of FALSE on each of 2787-2789; ais523
(the justiciar at the time the case was called) received neither
judicial position, powers, nor obligations due to R2246.

I'll also note that, both the CotC and Justiciar attempted to judge this
case when they COULD NOT; therefore as of this writing the case remains
open.  The CotC CAN judge it now, or the current justiciar CAN recuse em
and reassign it.

However, I'll note another loophole.  The deadline for both judgement
and reassignment has passed, and at the time it passed both CotC and
justiciar had excused reasons of uncertainty not to act.  Therefore, if
they never do these things, there is no punishment that can be applied.