Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2670

==============================  CFJ 2670  ==============================

    Agora can be Satisfied with an intent to perform a dependent
    action With 2 Support (that does not also specify being
    performed With Notice).

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 coppro

Judge:                                  c.
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2670a
Decision:                               (pending)

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       28 Aug 2009 20:32:19 GMT
Assigned to c.:                         28 Aug 2009 20:42:15 GMT
Judged TRUE by c.:                      28 Aug 2009 20:42:15 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     28 Aug 2009 20:47:13 GMT
Appealed by c.:                         28 Aug 2009 20:50:18 GMT
Appealed by Wooble:                     28 Aug 2009 21:50:46 GMT
Appeal 2670a:                           28 Aug 2009 21:50:46 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

The bar on coppro is not because I think e'd be a bad judge, but to
force a rotation. This CFJ is called mostly because of a scam, although
the judge should look into whether rule 2124 is really broken or not
(it's a rather important question).

========================================================================

Judge c.'s Arguments:

Item (4) is part of the list of conditions with no explicit
connective-- Agora is satisfied if and only if ((1) and (2) and (3);
(4)).  The interpretation of the semicolon is unclear.  The most
obvious interpretation is another "and", in which case item (4), that
the action to be performed is With Notice, is required for all
dependent actions; but the semicolon could also be replaced with an
"or", where Agora is satisfied if and only if ((1) and (2) and (3)) OR
(4).  In normal circumstances, the former interpretation should
prevail, but as that interpretation completely breaks a large part of
the game, we may consider the lack of conjunction an inclarity, and
use the latter interpretation out of concern for the best interests of
the game.  TRUE.

========================================================================

Judge c.'s Evidence:

Rule 2124/13 (Power=2)
Agoran Satisfaction

[...]

      Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
      if and only if:

      (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then
          it has fewer than N objectors;

      (2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, then it
          has N or more supporters; and

      (3) if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
          the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or
          the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

      (4) The action to be performed is With Notice.

========================================================================