Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2809a

=================  Appeal 2809a (Interest Index = 0)  ==================

Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       05 Jul 2010 17:33:32 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           14 Jul 2010 22:23:04 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          14 Jul 2010 22:23:04 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          14 Jul 2010 22:23:04 GMT
Yally moves to REMAND:                  14 Jul 2010 22:28:04 GMT
Wooble moves to REMAND:                 15 Jul 2010 13:43:43 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND:                 16 Jul 2010 22:56:35 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                16 Jul 2010 22:56:35 GMT

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

Appellant coppro's Arguments:

I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. While Judge 
Murphy's arguments were correct in the situation, I would additionaly 
submit that the entire purpose of the proposal was to see whether or not 
the Agoran convention that square brackets are commentary would mean 
that the proposal effectively has no text, or whether the meaning of the 
square brackets must be inferred from the proposal's text. As such, I 
request that Judge Murphy be given an opportunity to revisit the 
judgment with that in mind.

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

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

I support this intent.

Proto-re-judgement:  The convention should be set aside when it makes
more sense to do so, which in this case it does.  Contrast a proposal
that said "[coppro wins.]" immediately after a clause awarding coppro
a Ribbon of each color.

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

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

> Proto-re-judgement:  The convention should be set aside when it makes
> more sense to do so, which in this case it does.  Contrast a proposal
> that said "[coppro wins.]" immediately after a clause awarding coppro
> a Ribbon of each color.

I'm not sure this wholly answers why it "make more sense to do so"?
Perhaps a good thing to address is whether a reasonable person could have
been confused and believed it a comment?  -G.

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

Panelist Yally's Arguments:

I opine REMAND without prejudice.

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

Panelist Wooble's Arguments:

I opine REMAND, without prejudice.

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

Panelist ais523's Arguments:

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 15:45 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> 
> > I opine REMAND on CFJ 2809a; everyone, including the original judge,
> > seems to want more detail in the judgement.
> 
> You need to specify with/without prejudice.

I opine REMAND without prejudice on CFJ 2809a.

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