Doesn't Rule 2240 imply the opposite of your argument?
In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one
claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence;
otherwise, the later clause takes precedence.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I shiny-CFJ on the following statement:
G. CAN assign this CFJ to emself by announcement.
ARGUMENTS
Rule 991 last paragraph paraphrases as following (full text in evidence).
- Sentence 1 unequivocally states that the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement.
- Sentence 2 states that the Caller is not "eligible to be assigned".
- Sentence 3 is about "interested players having equal opportunity".
- Sentence 4 states that only eligible players CAN assign cases to
themselves w/o 3 objections.
The question is whether sentence 2's "eligibility" limitation applies
backwards to the Arbitor's ability to assign judgement, or if it only
applies forward (and limits self-assignment, but still allows the
Arbitor to assign anyone).
My personal feeling is that sentence 2 applies forward, but does not
limit the Arbitor's ability to assign, literally, any player. This
case occurred to me when I noticed that at least one player was not
getting "equal opportunity to judge" (sentence 3) because e also called
a lot of CFJs. So in the case where I (as Arbitor) can't occasionally
(in rare circumstances) self-assign, I am at risk of breaking that SHALL.
EVIDENCE
Rule 991/23 (Power=2.0)
Calls for Judgement
Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ,
syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into:
a) by announcement, and spending 1 Action Point, OR
b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ cost in shinies,
OR
c) by announcement if e is not a player.
When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally bar
one person from the case by announcement.
At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
assigned exactly one judgement.
The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
of Agora.
When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all players
except the initiator and the person barred (if any). The Arbitor
SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players
have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no
judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN
assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent judicial
case activity, including open and recently-judged cases, recent
judicial assignments, and a list of players interested in judging.
