Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2739a ================= Appeal 2739a (Interest Index = 0) ================== Panelist: Yally Decision: AFFIRM Panelist: Walker Decision: AFFIRM Panelist: c. Decision: AFFIRM ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 07 Dec 2009 17:17:50 GMT Assigned to Yally (panelist): 14 Dec 2009 17:39:13 GMT Assigned to Walker (panelist): 14 Dec 2009 17:39:13 GMT Assigned to c. (panelist): 14 Dec 2009 17:39:13 GMT c. moves to AFFIRM: 14 Dec 2009 20:09:38 GMT Walker moves to AFFIRM: 14 Dec 2009 21:09:07 GMT Yally moves to AFFIRM: 14 Dec 2009 23:00:55 GMT Final decision (AFFIRM): 14 Dec 2009 23:00:55 GMT ======================================================================== Appellant coppro's Arguments: I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. While ais523's logic is sound, eir arguments apply it to Taral, not to G.. I recommend a judgment of AFFIRM with a concurring opinion. ======================================================================== Appellant Taral's Arguments: On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > The judgment refers to you, but the rule refers to the person naming eir > mentor (G.) and not the player being named (you). Oh. I support then. :) ======================================================================== Appellant Murphy's Arguments: I support, and suggest the following as the concurring opinion: Judge ais523's argument should have been applied to G. (the player attempting to name a mentor) rather than Taral (the player e attempted to name as a mentor), as the former is the subject of the continuous-registration requirement. Eir argument is otherwise sound, and would have led to the same verdict with this correction applied. ======================================================================== Panelist Walker's Arguments: Any suggestions for a concurring opinion? ========================================================================