==============================  CFJ 2938  ==============================

    If A single appeal case (submitted to the CotC) had been assigned a
    panel of three players, none of whom is or was the Justiciar; and
    each of them opined for a different judgment within the time limit;
    and did not subsequently change their judgments; and the Justiciar
    had within the time limit published three Justiciar's Opinions on
    that case, each indicating one of judgments opined by a panelist;
    and the Justiciar published no other Justiciar's Opinions on that
    case; and the identity of the Justiciar remained unchanged
    throughout the entire hypothetical time period described in this
    CFJ; then more than four days after the time limit, it would be
    POSSIBLE for the Clerk of the Courts to act for the panel and
    deliver a judgment.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      20 Dec 2010 04:06:48 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         20 Dec 2010 07:15:22 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      20 Dec 2010 07:58:54 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

First, this is not overly hypothecial in my opinion. I was about to
publish multiple Justiciar's Opinions on omd's recent appeal of my
criminal case against em before I noticed the bug and subsequently
decided to call a CFJ. A substantially similar one could easily be
created by a Justiciar in the normal course of things.

Now, an explanation of the issue at hand - most of the CFJ is setting up
the hypothetical and also wording it properly as a tortoise. The real
crux of the issue is this, from Rule 911:

       - if the Justiciar has published an opinion on the case
         clearly marked as the Justiciar's Opinion and indicating a
         valid judgement, and that judgement is the same as one given
         by at least one panel member (other than the Justiciar), then
         the panel delivers that judgement;

The problem is that there is no exclusion against two or more unique
Jusiciar's opinions. If multiple Justiciar's Opinions exist and they
both are judgments given by other panelists, then this rule appears to
click in for both of them. What's more, there is nowhere in the rules a
clause causing this ambiguity to resolve in favor of no judgment - what
is occurring here is a single clause is contradicting itself.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

"an opinion" can be reasonably interpreted as "exactly one
opinion", leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

I find that marking a message as "the Justiciar's Opinion" as required
for the rule overrides and replaces any previous Justiciar's Opinion
on the case, provided the previous opinion wasn't already used to
assign the judgement.  This natural replacing of "the" opinion functions
in the same natural way as consent (if you cease to consent, you withdraw
previous consent rather than existing in both states), or support
and objections (not necessarily in terms of the official dependent
mechanism, but in the natural sense of withdrawing support/objections).

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