Index ← 1890a CFJ 1890 1891a → text
==============================  CFJ 1890  ==============================

    The Speaker CAN assign prerogatives for the upcoming month in the
    seven days before the beginning of a month.


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1890a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  OscarMeyr

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by G.:                           02 Feb 2008 00:16:00 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        02 Feb 2008 04:46:32 GMT
omd recused:                            14 Feb 2008 22:29:35 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  15 Feb 2008 18:45:05 GMT
Judged TRUE by OscarMeyr:               22 Feb 2008 01:37:07 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        22 Feb 2008 06:00:10 GMT
Appealed by root:                       22 Feb 2008 06:08:08 GMT
Appealed by Zefram:                     22 Feb 2008 10:08:39 GMT
Appeal 1890a:                           23 Feb 2008 06:06:39 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     19 Apr 2008 11:57:21 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr:                  19 Apr 2008 11:57:21 GMT
OscarMeyr recused:                      28 Apr 2008 06:00:33 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     28 Apr 2008 06:02:58 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 01 May 2008 13:08:55 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2019 requires the Speaker to make assignments by using the
term SHALL (R2152).  Question 1 comes down to whether SHALL empowers
the act to be performed by announcement or any other method, or
merely requires without empowering.  The time limit is specified by
R1023(a) by "timely fashion".


Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:

CFJ 1765 established that "SHALL do X" implies "CAN do X by
announcement."  Accordingly, I rule TRUE.


Judge OscarMeyr's Evidence:

H. Trial Judge root's arguments in CFJ 1765:

        Regarding the case of a timely posture flip, I agree with the
        Initiator's argument that an obligation itself does not imply
        capability.  However, as I have previously maintained, I believe that
        the obligation to perform an action in conjunction with the phrase "by
        announcement", as used in the last paragraph of R1871/18, implies a
        mechanism for the action, which exists whenever the obligation is
        imposed.  The existence of a mechanism for an action does imply that
        the action is POSSIBLE, so I find CFJ 1765 to be TRUE.


Appellant omd's Arguments:

See root's message in a-d, among other things.


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

Rule 2019/13 provided no mechanism by which the Speaker could assign
Prerogatives, and the court finds no precedent for taking SHALL to
imply CAN when no mechanism is given in the Rules.  Additionally, an
inspection of the use of SHALL in the current ruleset shows no other
case where such an implication would be required to allow a player to
take some action required by the rules; in every other case such a
mechanism is explicitly provided if necessary.