==============================  CFJ 3009  ==============================

    An entity poorly qualified to judge a case is necessarily  qualified
    to judge that case.

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  Walker
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      24 Apr 2011 10:47:58 GMT
Assigned to Walker:                     25 Apr 2011 03:01:44 GMT
Walker recused:                         15 May 2011 22:35:41 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                15 May 2011 23:23:53 GMT
Judged TRUE by Machiavelli:             16 May 2011 19:19:07 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The question is basically as to whether being poorly qualified is a
subset of qualified, one of three options for qualification, or a status
completely indepedent of qualification.

The reason this is relevant is that a judicial panel containing myself
was assigned to case 3004a despite the fact that I was sitting at the
time and thus poorly qualified to judge it. However, poor qualification
does not firectly affect the qualification of the judicial panel
(R2277). I am not sure if such an assignment was legal, since it is not
clear if, due to being poorly qualified, I was not qualified.

By the English interpretation, poorly qualified is still qualified I
think. However, that's unclear at best, and R1871 says
       * Sitting.  Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but
         will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the
         bench.

which implies that poorly qualified entities are not qualified (and by
R1868, qualified is the default for a first-class player such as myself).

Additionally, however, R1871 says
        a) no entity is well-qualified to be assigned to any of them;

This is the only use of "well-qualified", possibly as an antonym of
poorly qualified. This could reinforce the notion that poorly qualified
is a subset of qualified and that well-qualified means "qualified but
not poorly qualified", or well-qualified could just be synonymous with
"qualified".

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

In several previous cases, adding a qualifier to a
term has been found to create a wholly independent term (i.e.
not a subsetted term) if both are explicitly defined by the
ruleset: most recently for "announcement" and "by announcement".

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

Judge Machiavelli's Arguments:

I see three reasonable interpretations of the terms "qualified",
"poorly qualified", and "unqualified". First, they could be a
trichotomy, with an entity who is poorly qualified being neither
qualified nor unqualified. Second, there could be a dichotomy between
"qualified" and "unqualified", with "qualified" being further split
into "well-qualified" and "poorly qualified". Third, the statement of
CFJ 3010 suggests that "qualified" may be a single state, with
"unqualified" divided into "poorly qualified" and (for lack of a
better term) "fully unqualified".

Rule 1868/17, "Judge Assignment Generally", paragraph 3, states that
qualified entities CAN be assigned as judges. This implies that it is
IMPOSSIBLE for non-qualified entities to be assigned as judges; I
don't believe that there is any way for this to be done (besides
proposals and such). Therefore, if it is POSSIBLE to assign an entity
as a judge, then that entity must be qualified to judge.

The same rule, in paragraph 5, states that it is ILLEGAL to assign a
poorly-qualified entity as a judge. This implies that it is POSSIBLE
to do so, since otherwise, there would be no point in proscribing it.
Therefore, a poorly-qualified entity is also qualified, meaning the
first interpretation above is the correct one.

We might as well use all the information we have, though. The only
other rule containing the phrase "poorly qualified" is Rule 1871.

Rule 1871/28 states, "Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge,
but are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels". Rule 911/40
states that an appeal panel must consist of entities that are
qualified to judge. Since Rule 1871 cannot override Rule 911, the
statement that Rule 1871 makes must be interpreted as a clarification,
implying that even though Leaning players are poorly qualified to
judge, they are also qualified, making them able to serve on appeal
panels.

Finally, Rule 1871/28 and Rule 911/40 both use the phrase
"well-qualified" (though with inconsistent punctuation). This phrase
is only meaningful (other than as a synonym for "qualified") if the
first interpretation above is the correct one.

I find that all of this evidence outweighs the precedent that G.
mentions, especially since the phrase "poorly qualified" is not
explicitly defined by the rules.

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