On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:01, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2871a > > ================= Appeal 2871a (Interest Index = 0) ================== > > Panelist: Tanner L. Swett > Decision: > > Panelist: Taral > Decision: > > Panelist: Yally > Decision: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 04 Oct 2010 12:51:56 GMT > Assigned to Tanner L. Swett (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Taral (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Yally (panelist): (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant Murphy's Arguments: > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. I request that > the panel judge OVERRULE/FALSE without prejudice; omd's arguments > are reasonable, but eir judgement does not match them, presumably > due to a thinko. > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant omd's Arguments: > > I support, oops. > > ======================================================================== > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2871 > > =================== CFJ 2871 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== > > There is a rule with ID number 2307 > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: ais523 > > Judge: omd > Judgement: TRUE > > Appeal: 2871a > Decision: (pending) > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by ais523: 26 Sep 2010 22:35:12 GMT > Assigned to omd: 03 Oct 2010 17:53:39 GMT > Judged TRUE by omd: 03 Oct 2010 19:59:57 GMT > Appealed by Murphy: 04 Oct 2010 00:52:23 GMT > Appealed by omd: 04 Oct 2010 03:55:55 GMT > Appealed by Wooble: 04 Oct 2010 12:51:56 GMT > Appeal 2871a: 04 Oct 2010 12:51:56 GMT > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > I CFJ on the statement "There is a rule with ID number 2307", as it's > unclear to me from the text of rule 2307 whether it self-repeals upon > the resolution of the decision, or Taral actually updating the decision. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > the relevant paragraph of 2307: > {{{ > When the Agoran decision is resolved, if a Website Submission > was selected as the outcome, then its author is awarded two > Leadership Tokens and Taral SHOULD update http://agoranomic.org/ > to reflect the winning Website Submission. Regardless of the > outcome, this rule then repeals itself. > }}} > > ======================================================================== > > Judge omd's Arguments: > > Since the word "then" comes in a clause that applies "regardless of > the outcome", it cannot be interpreted to refer to an action (Taral > updating http://agoranomic.org/) that is only mentioned in the context > of one sort of outcome; instead, it must refer to "when the Agoran > decision is resolved". I suppose it might be argued that "its author > is awarded two Leadership Tokens and Taral SHOULD..." is part of a > process (which is null if a Website Submission was not selected as the > outcome), and "then" refers to the end of the process, but under that > interpretation, the rule would be assuming that Taral would indeed > update the website, which doesn't make sense when eir requirement to > do so is just a SHOULD. > > ======================================================================== > I opine OVERRULE/FALSE without prejudice.
