Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2805

===================  CFJ 2805 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================

    Tiger created a Fragment in the above-quoted message.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  coppro
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2805a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  Yally
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       11 Jun 2010 16:21:54 GMT
Assigned to coppro:                     13 Jun 2010 20:37:22 GMT
Judged TRUE by coppro:                  13 Jun 2010 21:41:27 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         15 Jun 2010 15:34:33 GMT
Appealed by comex:                      15 Jun 2010 16:56:27 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     15 Jun 2010 17:04:51 GMT
Appeal 2805a:                           15 Jun 2010 17:20:30 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     28 Jun 2010 19:02:40 GMT
Remanded to coppro:                     28 Jun 2010 19:02:40 GMT
coppro recused:                         14 Jul 2010 22:17:00 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     14 Jul 2010 22:19:11 GMT
Wooble recused:                         29 Jul 2010 02:13:50 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      29 Jul 2010 02:15:10 GMT
Judged TRUE by Yally:                   29 Jul 2010 02:26:50 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

It's unclear whether the alleged Fragment was delimited by
[[[ and ]]] (which are plausible delimiters to use), or whether they are
part of the Fragment itself (also plausible, due to the
punctuation-heavy nature of the Fragment). Therefore, this may have
failed due to ambiguity. (By the way, do we actually have a rule that
allows actions to fail due to ambiguity?)

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:10 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> I create a Fragment with the following text:
> [[[
> @->---@
> ]]]

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

As granulator it was pretty clear to me that the actual
fragment was @->---@ due to line breaks and the common use of [[[]]]
to denote framing.  -G.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by comex:

Me too.  Was anyone actually confused about the intended
content of the fragment?

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Tiger:

If one kept track of the rest of the game at the time, I
immediately before (or maybe after) sent a "proto of a D-proposal",
thus intended to include fragments, including that fragment with
[[[]]] counting as delimiters. Of course this might not be required,
as it was a proto to a-d, but still.

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

Judge coppro's Arguments:

Tiger's message clearly and unambiguously specifying that he was 
submitting a fragment with "the following text", immediately followed by 
three lines of text. Per Rules 217 and 478, he did submit a Fragment 
containing those three lines of text; tradition is irrelevant given the 
explicitness of the action. TRUE.

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

Judge Yally's Arguments:

I agree that Tiger's action was suitably unambigous. [[[ ]]] and similar
indicators have traditionally represented a framing of text. Were Tiger to
want those characters to be a part of the fragment, he should have made it
clear. As he did not, it appears (and everyone seems to agree) that his
fragment unambiguously did not contain those characters. TRUE.

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