Index ← 2748 CFJ 2749 2750 → text
==============================  CFJ 2749  ==============================

    If the Admiral of the Navy initiated a coup right now, and
    purported to give the CotC the Justiciar card when e Formed the
    Government, eir coup would be a chicken coup.


Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by scshunt:                      29 Nov 2009 01:44:52 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     29 Nov 2009 17:06:04 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  29 Nov 2009 17:45:47 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

R1450 prevents the CotC from owning the Justiciar card; does
the failure of one part of the Formation of Government mean that the
entire Formation fails? or just that that assignment fails, but a
Government has still been Formed?


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

First, was there an Admiral of the Navy at the time this case was
initiated?  (This was the question that inspired my recent tortoise
attempt.)  I believe the Dealor's report of November 14 (saying that
it's me) has self-ratified, overwriting c.'s Drop Your Weapon of
October 23, so we're fine on this point.

Second, what does Rule 2269 have to say?  There has never been a
coup d'etat, so the hypothetical coup would not be a coup d'etat
("since the last coup d'etat ended" is missing its referent) nor
a coup de grace, so it would be a chicken coup.  TRUE.

For completeness, here's my analysis of what would happen if "(or
there has never been a previous coup d'etat") was inserted:

  * The Speaker last Formed a Government on September 1.

  * The Admiral (me) is not the Speaker (I think the order of
    succession is me, coppro, ais523, c., Tiger, making Tiger
    the Speaker).

  * R2269 would declare the coup a coup d'etat.

  * Now the heart of the matter:  would R1450 cancel R2275's
    entire Formation of a Government (triggering R2270's override)
    or just the one transfer?  R2275 uses "all" rather than "each",
    and contains an all-or-nothing self-ratification clause, so I
    would choose the former interpretation and judge TRUE anyway.

  * R2273 only applies to a coup de grace with a missing referent,
    so would not apply.