Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2809 =================== CFJ 2809 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== Proposal 6745 is a proposal awarding a win to one or more persons. ======================================================================== Caller: comex Judge: Murphy Judgement: TRUE Appeal: 2809a Decision: REMAND Judge: Murphy Judgement: TRUE ======================================================================== History: Called by comex: 02 Jul 2010 17:39:06 GMT Assigned to Murphy: 04 Jul 2010 17:17:16 GMT Judged TRUE by Murphy: 04 Jul 2010 17:26:05 GMT Appealed by coppro: 05 Jul 2010 04:52:46 GMT Appealed by Murphy: 05 Jul 2010 17:05:59 GMT Appealed by G.: 05 Jul 2010 17:33:32 GMT Appeal 2809a: 05 Jul 2010 17:33:32 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 16 Jul 2010 22:56:35 GMT Remanded to Murphy: 16 Jul 2010 22:56:35 GMT Judged TRUE by Murphy: 17 Jul 2010 00:02:56 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Proposal 6745 (Purple, AI=1.0, Interest=0) by coppro > Huh? > > [coppro wins.] ======================================================================== Judge Murphy's Arguments: The context of "proposal awarding a win to one or more persons" comes from Rule 2188 (Win by Proposal), where it is most naturally interpreted as "proposal that, if it took effect, would thereby award a win to one or more persons". Proposal 6745 is such a proposal; in particular, in the context of the text of a proposal, "coppro wins" is reasonably clear shorthand for "Upon the adoption of this proposal, coppro is awarded a win". No one has presented any specific counterarguments to any of this. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy: I'm not sure how this would apply to a proposal that was adopted, but prevented from taking effect; but I don't know of any reason that Proposal 6745 would have been so prevented. ======================================================================== Judge Murphy's Arguments: Prior to the initiation of this case, the only responses I found in the a-b and a-d archives for June and July 2010 were a) votes b) Wooble's intent to make it Democratic Given that no one publically pointed out the bracket issue until after the voting period - indeed, after the original judgement of this case - and the non-comment interpretation was clearly advantageous to the author, I find that the non-comment interpretation was reasonably clear. ========================================================================