Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3098

==============================  CFJ 3098  ==============================

    CFJ 3072a has been judged.

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

Caller:                                 woggle

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by woggle:                       17 Aug 2011 21:54:47 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        10 Sep 2011 19:05:38 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    11 Sep 2011 04:31:09 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

OVERRULE/NOT GUILTY doesn't specify prejudice and therefore
is not a valid judgment in this case. Therefore they are not "such
published opinions" as required by R2341 to cause the panel to act:
          As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned to a
     case, each member of the panel SHALL publish an opinion
     indicating a _valid judgement_ to assign to the case -- only the
     _last such published opinion_ for each member is used to determine
     the outcome.

(emphasis added)

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

On 4 Sep 2010, Rule 911 was amended to legislate implicit prejudice
(APPEAL or REMAND = without, REMIT or OVERRULE = with).

On 16 May 2011, the relevant text was moved from Rule 911 to Rule 2341
with some modifications, omitting the text on implicit prejudice.  Does
it persist as game custom?

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

We do implicitly accept shortcuts like "vote on a proposal" or "make a
proposal Democratic"*, where, as in this case, the literal message
parses syntactically but not semantically, but as far as I know, in
all those cases there is only one possible action the player could
have meant (which even a moron in a hurry would be able to figure
out), and there is little benefit in forcing em to make it explicit.
In this case, there are two-- e could have meant to judge with or
without prejudice-- and in general it's possible that e might have
forgotten to decide which one e wanted, so rejecting the message has
the advantage that e could go ahead and decide.  Although game custom
strongly suggests e meant to include prejudice, I'm skeptical that
it's strong enough to remove the ambiguity.  FALSE.

* much to my displeasure three years ago (has it really been that long?)

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