DIS: Re: BUS: Panel intent, CFJ 2203a
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:26 -0700, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 07:27, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
> > 2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
> > {{{
> > This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
> > there were two plausible interpretations of what the vote meant, and if
> > so, whether this made the vote sufficiently ambiguous as to be entirely
> > ineffective, and also to consider the appelant's arguments.
> > }}}
>
> I support this.
>
Wrong intent, we have a newer one we're agreeing to...
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Panel intent, CFJ 2203a
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:35 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend to cause the panel of 2203a to send the following message,
> > with the support of two of {woggle, ais523, the CotC}:
> >
> > As mentioned in the Appellant's arguments, there is sufficient evidence
> > in the discussion forum around this case (including from disinterested
> > observers) that the tickets/votes in question were ambiguous, in that
> > they confused a reasonably significant number of informed observers.
> > It's important to note that the power-1 Rule 2127 enables conditional
> > votes by spelling out standards for considering a conditional to be
> > "clearly identified" by the power-3 R683. The fact that the R2127 "can
> > be reasonably determined" standards leads back to/modifies a stronger
> > R683 power-3 requirement for "clear" identification should lead us to a
> > relatively strict definition of "reasonable" in this case; e.g. to be
> > "clear", it should be "reasonably determinable" to *most* or *any*
> > observer (as opposed, for example, to non-voting action cases where the
> > recordkeeping Officer's fair understanding alone might be sufficiently
> > reasonable). This panel overrules to FALSE.
> I support this intent.
There are only about 14 hours left to resolve this intent; given that I
technically speaking am breaking the rules if I don't try my best to get
the panel to submit a judgement on time, I encourage woggle to support
this, or failing that CotC Murphy to support a majority action.
--
ais523
Panelist, CFJ 2203a
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Panel intent, CFJ 2203a
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 09:19 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
> > 2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
> > {{{
> > This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
> > there were two plausible interpretations of what the vote meant, and if
> > so, whether this made the vote sufficiently ambiguous as to be entirely
> > ineffective, and also to consider the appelant's arguments.
> > }}}
>
> I would prefer to just overrule to FALSE based on appellant's arguments.
> Too many cases dragging on too long... I'm moving towards an activist
> stance on appeals when the case seems straightforward to me. -g.
>
I'd be willing to support an overrule to FALSE too. Do you want to write
the intent, or shall I?
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Panel intent, CFJ 2203a
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote:
> I intend to send the following on behalf of the judicial panel in CFJ
> 2203a, with the support of two of {woggle, Goethe, the CotC}:
> {{{
> This panel REMANDs CFJ 2203. The judge is instructed to consider whether
> there were two plausible interpretations of what the vote meant, and if
> so, whether this made the vote sufficiently ambiguous as to be entirely
> ineffective, and also to consider the appelant's arguments.
> }}}
I would prefer to just overrule to FALSE based on appellant's arguments.
Too many cases dragging on too long... I'm moving towards an activist
stance on appeals when the case seems straightforward to me. -g.
