Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2803

===================  CFJ 2803 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    coppro violated R2201 by not responding to a "claim of error"
    concerning a proposal being distributed with an incorrect
    chamber.

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

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 coppro

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           07 Jun 2010 05:17:55 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     13 Jun 2010 20:35:59 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  13 Jun 2010 23:02:06 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Facts:  Promotor coppro did not respond asap to a "CoE" published by G. 
that claimed (correctly) that an Agoran Decision initiation notice 
published by coppro listed an invalid chamber for the proposal.  

coppro says:  "distribution is not self-ratifying and no admission is
required. The distribution failed platonically (I will redistribute in a
minute)."

G. says:  "R2201 defines what a doubt and CoE are, but don't explicitly
limit them to self-ratifying documents (the part of the Rule describing
Doubts and CoEs would function fine without the first paragraph). R2201(b)
states that a CoE is "appropriate for matters of fact" not just self-
ratifying matters and lays out response requirements, which don't depend
on the document being self-ratifying."

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

Gratuitous Arguments by comex:

It is not a claim of error because it does not explain the scope
(but only the nature) of the perceived error.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

That's just silly.  "Scope and nature" is reasonably contained in the
CoE message that cites/quotes the relevant proposal distribution
and decision number (the scope) and states the error in chamber (the
nature).  Still, it was remiss of me not to enter said message into
evidence.  "CoE" Message of 1-June by G.:
> On Sat, 29 May 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> NUM   II  AI   SUBMITTER    CHAMBER  TITLE
>> 6731  1   2.0  G.           Purple   Threat Level Green
>
> COE:  This should be Red, I set my chamber to Red just before submitting
> it (same message).  -G.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

I accept the caller's arguments and judge TRUE.

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