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

=================  Appeal 2805a (Interest Index = 0)  ==================

Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       15 Jun 2010 17:20:30 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              20 Jun 2010 15:55:05 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          20 Jun 2010 15:55:05 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          20 Jun 2010 15:55:05 GMT
Murphy moves to REMAND:                 27 Jun 2010 21:34:45 GMT
Wooble moves to REMAND:                 28 Jun 2010 12:34:25 GMT
G. moves to REMAND:                     28 Jun 2010 19:02:40 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                28 Jun 2010 19:02:40 GMT

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

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I intend to appeal this ruling with 2 support.  Many people have been 
equally explicit about submitting "the following proposal" which is also 
a "body of text" (R106) and Promotors (including the current judge) have 
not included the delimiters as part of the "text".  This ruling 
effectively removes the ability to us plain and obvious delimiters in 
all "text" submissions, which includes just about everything.  This is
not for the good of the game.  -G.

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

Appellant ais523's Arguments:

I also support. Appealing a judgement just because you don't like its
implications is a bad idea, but I'm not certain that this judgement
covers the bases thoroughly enough to set a precedent that people will
follow, nor to convince me it's correct.

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

Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

comex wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>> CFJ 2805a entered its four-day overtime period about two hours
>> ago.  See Rule 911 for details; H. Justiciar Yally, take note.
>>
>> I opine REMAND, requesting that H. Judge coppro explicitly address the
>> pros/cons of accepting or rejecting implicit delimiters in light of
> 
> You need to specify with or without prejudice.

I opine REMAND without prejudice.

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

Panelist Wooble's Arguments:

I concur with Murphy's instructions and opine remand without prejudice.

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

Panelist G.'s Arguments:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
[snip]
> I concur with Murphy's instructions and opine remand without prejudice.

As do I.  -G.

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