Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2689
============================== CFJ 2689 ==============================
The most recent Scorekeepor's report was correct in reporting
that BobTHJ revoked 3 points from ais523.
========================================================================
Caller: Wooble
Judge: Walker
Judgement: TRUE
Appeal: 2689a
Decision: REMAND
Judge: Walker
Judgement:
========================================================================
History:
Called by Wooble: 17 Sep 2009 17:14:42 GMT
Assigned to Walker: 18 Sep 2009 20:03:18 GMT
Judged TRUE by Walker: 20 Sep 2009 09:44:55 GMT
Appealed by coppro: 20 Sep 2009 17:09:05 GMT
Appealed by Walker: 20 Sep 2009 17:16:13 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT
Appeal 2689a: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 24 Sep 2009 03:19:30 GMT
Remanded to Walker: 24 Sep 2009 03:19:30 GMT
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:38, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>> I CoE on the most recent Scorekeepor's report: the revocations shown
>> were most likely IMPOSSIBLE.
>>
> The last Scorekeepor report to self-ratify was Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:55.
> Point events since then (up to but not including Murphy's Cookie Jar
> awards that provoked this case):
>
> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:16 - SoA creates a Digit Ranch (7) in the
> possession of BobTHJ (-3 X-Points)
> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:40 - SoA creates a Digit Ranch (7) in the
> possession of ais523 (-3 X-Points)
>
> The AAA's threshold is 100. Since July 17 when I began automated point
> tracking the AAA has revoked only 45 X-points (including those revoked
> above). It is =A0doubtful that another 55 points were revoked in the
> period between June 29 and July 17, these revocations were successful.
> I deny this CoE.
The life of the contest began before June 29.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ:
Yes, but thresholds were created on June 29. Points awarded prior to
that would not have counted toward a non-existant threshold. I submit
this as an argument in this case.
========================================================================
Judge Walker's Arguments:
The question in this case is whether point awards and revocations
before June 29 count against a contest's point limit. (The current
award/revacation system was adopted on this date).
BobTHJ argues that point awards before this date do not count against
the then non-existent limits; Wooble's recent precedent in CFJs
2686-87 seems to disagree. I concur with Wooble's arguments* in both
of these cases, and as they remain unappealed, I judge CFJ 2689 TRUE.
* E discussed three possible interpretations of R2233 in eir
arguments, and settled on 3: A contest can reward a total number of
points equal to its
threshold limit over the life of the contest.
========================================================================
Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2689a
============================ Appeal 2689a ============================
Panelist: Pavitra
Decision: REMAND
Panelist: coppro
Decision: REMAND
Panelist: BobTHJ
Decision: REMAND
========================================================================
History:
Appeal initiated: 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra (panelist): 23 Sep 2009 22:21:45 GMT
Assigned to coppro (panelist): 23 Sep 2009 22:21:45 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): 23 Sep 2009 22:21:45 GMT
coppro moves to REMAND: 23 Sep 2009 22:26:26 GMT
BobTHJ moves to REMAND: 23 Sep 2009 22:26:59 GMT
Pavitra moves to REMAND: 24 Sep 2009 03:19:30 GMT
Final decision (REMAND): 24 Sep 2009 03:19:30 GMT
========================================================================
Appellant coppro's Arguments:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this case, as the judgment does not
seem to concur with the arguments. I recommend REMAND.
========================================================================
Appellant Walker's Arguments:
ah, dammit. coppro is right, I meant FALSE. I support.
========================================================================
