scshunt wrote:
> I CFJ (II=3) on {
> 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.
> }
>
> 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.
Arguments: "an opinion" can be reasonably interpreted as "exactly one
opinion", leading to a straightforward judgement of TRUE.
