Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2770a

=================  Appeal 2770a (Interest Index = 0)  ==================

Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               woggle
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       07 Mar 2010 18:39:38 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist):          07 Mar 2010 20:45:13 GMT
G. moves to REMAND:                     10 Mar 2010 18:26:48 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND:                 10 Mar 2010 18:32:42 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND:                 11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                11 Mar 2010 22:22:36 GMT

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

Appellant comex's Arguments:

I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support.  Unlike the proof of
a theorem, winning the game is supposed to be an instantaneous, not
continuous, event, and e.g. "When one or more persons satisfy at least
one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all
such persons win the game." implies that, in the case of ambiguity, we
should prefer the interpretation where satisfying a Winning Condition
only happens for an instant.

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

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

coppro cited a past precedent in a-d, probably CFJ 2489.

The specific pattern addressed in that judgement is

  "Upon X, Y satisfies Z"

The (similar but not identical) pattern used by Rule 2199 is

  "Y CAN do X to satisfy Z"

Cleanup procedures to the effect of "Y does not satisfy Z for the
same X" are meaningful under either interpretation, e.g. to prevent
the same player(s) from re-satisfying Win by Junta by announcement
about the same proposal.  This could also be implemented as "Upon an
X that has not already caused Y to satisfy Z...", but separating it
into the cleanup procedure is more convenient (especially since cleanup
procedures may also do other things, e.g. Clout used to reset castes,
High Score used to reset scores).

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

Appellant coppro's Arguments:

I support and do so because the judgment fails to address CFJ 2489, 
which it appears to contradict.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Yally wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:39, Sean Hunt <rideau3@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I support and do so because the judgment fails to address CFJ 2489, which
it
>> appears to contradict.
> 
> I was not aware of this CFJ when I issued my decision.

Based on the above, I recommend REMAND.

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

Panelist G.'s Arguments:

Judge Yally's interpretation is thoughtful and reasonable.  It doesn't
contradict current text, but rather past precedents of which e was
unaware.  E should specifically consider whether eir current reasoning 
is sufficient to overturn precedent.  REMAND.

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

Panelist ais523's Arguments:

I also opine REMAND on this; if a judge doesn't have all the information
when they make a judgement, the best option is to allow them to
reconsider with all the information available, unless the judge doesn't
want to take the case.

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