Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2979a
============================ Appeal 2979a ============================ Panelist: Murphy Decision: REMAND Panelist: omd Decision: REMIT Panelist: G. Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 23 Mar 2011 16:52:47 GMT Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 30 Mar 2011 16:21:15 GMT Assigned to omd (panelist): 30 Mar 2011 16:21:15 GMT Assigned to G. (panelist): 30 Mar 2011 16:21:15 GMT Murphy moves to REMAND: 04 Apr 2011 04:22:37 GMT G. moves to OVERRULE/FALSE: 04 Apr 2011 05:05:45 GMT omd moves to REMIT: 15 Apr 2011 22:22:06 GMT Final decision (REMIT): 15 Apr 2011 22:22:06 GMT ======================================================================== Appellant G.'s Arguments: On timing, this is a pretty strong tradition the judge is bucking here, without reasonable justification. The tradition is that doing the following in one message: I set up gamestate X; I CFJ on whether the gamestate is X; I replace gamestate X with Y; that the CFJ SHOULD be judged based on that interim "moment" before Y. I think bucking this tradition radically degrades the convenience of setting up test situations and ending them cleanly, and this judgement, if upheld or not appealed, would add an arbitrary and capricious aspect of judicial "choice" to CFJ timing. ======================================================================== Appellant omd's Arguments: CFJ 2086 ======================================================================== Panelist Murphy's Arguments: I agree that multiple actions in one message should be evaluated in order (unless the message indicates otherwise, which ais523's message did not). Thus, labeling the parts of eir message as follows: a) I call for judgement on the statement "I register". b) I do so. this CFJ depends on whether a) expresses reasonably unambiguous intent to register *as of a)*. omd found in CFJ 2980 that b) contains some ambiguity, but little enough that it still counts as "reasonably unambiguous". Similarly, I believe that a) contains some ambiguity, but little enough that it's reasonably unambiguous that ais523 did *not* intend to register as of a) - e merely intended to mention the sentence while calling for judgement - and thus that CFJ 2979 is FALSE. ======================================================================== Panelist G.'s Arguments: I agree with Justice Murphy's reasoning but this has been two go-rounds with this judge and I wonder why Justice Murphy didn't merely put an end to it: Overturn/FALSE. ======================================================================== Panelist omd's Arguments: [no opinion given] ======================================================================== Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2979 ============================== CFJ 2979 ============================== I register ======================================================================== Caller: ais523 Judge: Wooble Judgement: FALSE Judge: Wooble Judgement: TRUE Appeal: 2979a Decision: REMIT ======================================================================== History: Called by ais523: 20 Mar 2011 16:03:29 GMT Assigned to Wooble: 20 Mar 2011 17:50:52 GMT Judged FALSE by Wooble: 20 Mar 2011 18:07:08 GMT Reconsideration requested by Wooble: 21 Mar 2011 19:04:55 GMT Reconsideration requested by omd: 21 Mar 2011 19:19:14 GMT Reconsideration requested by G.: 21 Mar 2011 20:34:34 GMT Assigned to Wooble: 21 Mar 2011 20:34:34 GMT Judged TRUE by Wooble: 23 Mar 2011 13:26:54 GMT Appealed by G.: 23 Mar 2011 16:26:00 GMT Appealed by omd: 23 Mar 2011 16:36:13 GMT Appealed by Murphy: 23 Mar 2011 16:52:47 GMT Appeal 2979a: 23 Mar 2011 16:52:47 GMT REMITED on Appeal: 15 Apr 2011 22:22:06 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 14:37 +0000, Alex Smith wrote: > I deregister. Murphy wrote: > *6964 1.0 Wooble I miss ais523 I call for judgement on the statement "I register". ======================================================================== Judge Wooble's Arguments: I judge FALSE. The message in which this CFJ was initiated does not indicate reasonably unambiguously that ais523 intended to become a player at that time. By initiating a CFJ into the matter, ais523 has explicitly indicated that the statement's veracity is in doubt, creating ambiguity. ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by Wooble: > CFJ 2979 actually ruled on the entire message, not just the first statement: > >> The message in which this CFJ was initiated does not >> indicate reasonably unambiguously that ais523 intended to become a >> player at that time. > > I disagree, but I'll comply with the precedent. FALSE. > I disagree too; I completely missed the last line of the original message when rendering my judgment. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Roujo: I support and do so, although I'm not sure how. =P ======================================================================== Judge Wooble's Arguments: While the statement "I register" in the CFJ was not an unambiguous intent to become a player, being wrapped in a CFJ call and thus indicating the caller's implicit belief that the statement's veracity was ambiguous, the following "I do so" was published at the same time as the CFJ statement. There's no compelling reason to consider the actions in the message as not occurring simultaneously at the instant it was published (as there might be if, for example, it was IMPOSSIBLE for a non-Player to submit a CFJ), so I take the Statement to be equivalent to "I am registering at this instant", not "This statement is causing me to register." TRUE. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by G.: If this judgement holds, then in the following case: 1. I set up gamestate A; 2. I CFJ on "the gamestate is A" 3. I replace gamestate A with B. the judge could arbitrarily pick between true, false, undetermined, or undecidable. This is not a particularly beneficial interpretation of judicial timing. ========================================================================
