============================  Appeal 1212a  ============================

Panelist:                               lee
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               Maud
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Panelist:                               Unknown

Panelist:                               Crito
Decision:                               REASSIGN



Appeal initiated:                       08 May 2000 20:53:56 GMT
Assigned to lee (panelist):             09 May 2000 19:38:01 GMT
Assigned to Maud (panelist):            09 May 2000 19:38:01 GMT
Assigned to Unknown (panelist):         09 May 2000 19:38:01 GMT
Maud moves to REASSIGN:                 14 May 2000 00:04:09 GMT
lee moves to REASSIGN:                  14 May 2000 01:01:29 GMT
Unknown recused (panelist):             19 May 2000 01:35:00 GMT
Assigned to Crito (panelist):           19 May 2000 01:35:00 GMT
Crito moves to REASSIGN:                19 May 2000 20:41:16 GMT
Final decision (REASSIGN):              19 May 2000 20:41:16 GMT


Panelist Maud's Arguments:

I am inclined to move to overturn the Judgement to FALSE.  Consider the
following.  Rule 1937 (already included in the Caller's evidence) indicates
that if a selection to be performed by majority vote does not produce a
decisive result within three days, all selections are cancelled.  It seems
that the Rule might be interpreted as saying that the Middle Oligarch
selected becomes a High Oligarch as soon as the selection produces a
decisive result.  This would have happened at 3 May 2000 09:49:12 +0100,
making the Statement evidently FALSE.

However, this argument is not sufficiently strong, in my opinion, for an
Appellate Opinion.  Further, the primary task of the Justices is to determine
whether the original Judgement should stand.  It is the opinion of this
Justice that the original Judgement should not stand.  The original Judge
gave no arguments.  Although arguments are not legally required, Calling
for Judgement on a Statement constitutes "proof of the existence of a
dispute" (R991).  A good Judgement will then consider counterarguments,
such as the (admittedly simple) one given above, and will provide reasons
for those who might put forward such arguments (whether such arguments
are put forward or not) to agree with the Judgement.

Therefore, I move to OVERTURN and reassign this CFJ.


Panelist Maud's Evidence:

Rule 991/3 (Power=2)
Invoking Judgement

      Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining
      to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a
      Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts.  For the purpose
      of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement
      shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.

      Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is
      clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.

      The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement,
      along with any additional material submitted by the Caller
      (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not
      later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge
      assigned to Judge it.


Panelist lee's Arguments:

agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au,Internet writes:
>>Judge Peekee's Arguments:
>>I hereby Jusge this TRUE.
>>As wes was selected by the other Oligarchs at such a time when then had
>>given their choice.  As described in 2) of the callers arguement.

I am bothered that the Peekee made a jusgement and not a judgement.  I am
also bothered that e did not present any arguments and relied on the
caller's cursory arguments.  As harvel has shown, there are easy
counterargument that should at least be presented and answered. I think
this CFJ deserves more consideration.  I move to overturn and reassign.


Panelist Crito's Arguments:

I find I have nothing significant to add to the statements made by the
Justices.  Therefore, I simply move to Overturn CFJ1212 and have it