Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2821a ================= Appeal 2821a (Interest Index = 0) ================== Panelist: ais523 Decision: REMAND Panelist: Wooble Decision: REMAND Panelist: Murphy Decision: REMAND ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 29 Jul 2010 20:03:17 GMT Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 30 Jul 2010 03:56:21 GMT Assigned to Wooble (panelist): 30 Jul 2010 03:56:21 GMT Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 30 Jul 2010 03:56:21 GMT ais523 moves to REMAND: 30 Jul 2010 11:01:35 GMT Wooble moves to REMAND: 30 Jul 2010 14:31:01 GMT Murphy moves to REMAND: 31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT Final decision (REMAND): 31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT ======================================================================== Appellant coppro's Arguments: I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment, as it implies that the win announcement is in fact the adoption of the proposal, but does not fully address whether a posting the text of a proposal purporting to award a win is the same as announcing that one or more players win the game, which is required to satisfy Rule 2186. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by G.: It DOES address this. It says that posting the proposal text alone ISN'T enough. But posting the two facts "Proposal 6470 has been adopted" followed, in the same announcement, by "here is the text of Proposal 6470: [this set of persons] has won" IS enough, because together contains all the information for 2186 and 2188 in one announcement. See the list of possibilities I just sent to discussion. ======================================================================== Appellant omd's Arguments: I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why, out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those persons". For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text: Upon an announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation. This is the same as R2188, but with "a win announcement" changed to "an announcement". Clearly, under this version, there is the potential for anyone to win the game by falsely claiming a proposal awarding em a win has been adopted-- there is no actual proposal to provide a set of "all those persons", but the text is only concerned with announcement. Why does adding the requirement that the announcement is correct change the referent? ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by G.: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > the > > announcement would still cause "all those persons" specified in the > > proposal (not just those listed in the win announcement) to win. > > I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why, > out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be > present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in > the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those > persons". For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text: > > Upon an announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or > more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the > Winning Condition of Legislation. > > This is the same as R2188, but with "a win announcement" changed to > "an announcement". Clearly, under this version, there is the > potential for anyone to win the game by falsely claiming a proposal > awarding em a win has been adopted-- there is no actual proposal to > provide a set of "all those persons", but the text is only concerned > with announcement. > > Why does adding the requirement that the announcement is correct > change the referent? Because it specifically maps the announcement to match the truthiness of what the Proposal purports, so there are not two disjoint sets. I don't think there are two competing sets of persons at all. Any person announced specifically in a win announcement must be a subset of those referred to in the proposal (I think I say as much in the judgement). More gratuity: The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different (not additional) information ("a win announcement that Proposal X has been adopted" in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an appeals directive to address this. I generally consider it additive, though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't affect the actual judgement. ======================================================================== Panelist ais523's Arguments: I opine REMAND without prejudice on both. The judge seems to want an opportunity to revisit eir own reasoning in the light of recent discussion. ======================================================================== Panelist Murphy's Arguments: > Appellant comex's Arguments: > > I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why, > out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be > present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in > the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those > persons". For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text: G. stated in footnote #1 of eir original judgement that the first set isn't required to be present, e.g. "Proposal 6740 was adopted and awarded a win to one or more persons" would be enough information to be effective. But this isn't really an /absent/ first set; it's an implicit first set of "same as the second set". A truly absent first set would look like "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted", which both comex and G. noted as being on the borderline of enough or not enough information. In the case that the first set is present but different from the second, there are two areas requiring interpretation: a) Does "factually correct" in Rule 2186 require the first set to match the second set, or merely to be a subset of it? Can the first set bootstrap the subset interpretation by hijacking the referent of "all those persons" in Rule 2188? b) Is it in the best interests of the game to reward comex (for eir clever scam attempt) more than the other potential winners (some of whom may not have been paying attention at all)? If so, does it outweigh the common-sense intent of Rule 2188? Finally, comex's original "This is a win announcement:" can reasonably be argued as applying to the entire message (e did not specify a more limited scope), thus including eir parenthetical comment that "...the proposal also awarded a win to other players". I opine REMAND without prejudice. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by omd: If I had intended it to apply to the entire message, I would have put "This is a win announcement:" on its own line. ========================================================================