============================  Appeal 1229a  ============================


Panelist:                               Wes
Decision:                               SUSTAIN


Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               lee
Decision:                               REASSIGN

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       22 Jun 2000 18:47:24 GMT
Assigned to Wes (panelist):             23 Jun 2000 03:11:34 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          23 Jun 2000 03:11:34 GMT
Assigned to lee (panelist):             23 Jun 2000 03:11:34 GMT
Wes moves to SUSTAIN:                   27 Jun 2000 00:19:09 GMT
Murphy moves to REASSIGN:               29 Jun 2000 06:06:37 GMT
Final decision (REASSIGN):              29 Jun 2000 07:04:16 GMT
lee moves to REASSIGN:                  29 Jun 2000 07:04:16 GMT

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

Panelist Wes's Arguments:

This is actually a very difficult Appeal to decide. With no real
arguments submitted with the CFJ, and no arguments at all with any
of the requests for Appeal, all we have to go on is the Arguments
of the Judge and our own research.

Taral did send an email to majordomo. That email never arrived. The
same information was then sent in another email to majordomo which
did arrive. Is that a continuation of the first sending, or a new
sending of its own? Or does it matter?

What it seems to come down to is the definition of "distribute". The
Rules leave no guidance here, so we fall back on the normal english
definition: "distribute or disperse widely". The Rules require that
the Proposals be dispersed widely within a certain time period. This
would seem to imply success in performing this action is required.
The email in question may have been distributed, but it was not
distributed within the required time period.

Whether the distribution would have been successful had it reached
gecko, but not been passed along until the appropriate time is, of
course, not the scope of this CFJ, so we will fail to address that
issue at this time.

With this argument in favor of Elysion's ruling, and no arguments
given to the contrary during the Appeals process, we hereby
SUSTAIN Elysion's Judgement.

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

Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

My reasons are the same reasons that led me to call for the
Appeal of CFJ 1229.  I find the following interpretation
plausible, and Judge Elysion did not address it in eir Judgement.

   * "<Player> sends <message> to the PF" is equivalent to "<Player>
     sends <message> towards the PF, in such a way that e reasonably
     expects it to be received in the PF soon afterward".

   * "<Player> distributes <message> to the PF" is equivalent to the
     same thing.

   * Given the above, Taral's actions on June 1 were sufficient to
     distribute the Batch at that time.

This is not to say that the Rules *should* work this way.  I believe
the Rules should specify whether they are keying on a Player sending
a message, the PF mechanisms (gecko et al) receiving it, and an
individual recipient Player receiving it.  I intend to work up a
proto soon.

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

Panelist lee's Arguments:

This matter is near and dear to my heart.  I run a couple dozen mail
servers.  I know from personal experience that the ways mail can fail to
get to the correct recipient are myriad. I think that the rules do not
sufficiently specify what "counts" as send, distribute, publish, etc. We
do need better definitions so that this kind of CFJ doesn't come up again
and again.  There should be clear standards and as can be seen by the
resent discussion, what standards there are are not clear to all.

Once I re-sent an election result that I had thought failed to problems in
my local system.  It ended up that gecko had the problem.  If I had
re-sent it a few hours later it would have been late but the original
would have been on time.  This issue could have come to consideration then
if I had not caught the problem when I did.  Initially I assumed that the
problem had either been with my modem or with my mail server which was
suffering a nasty mail loop than night. (2.6 gig worth of non-delivery
notices in one day) Sometimes gecko's outages are fairly brief. I was only
sure it was problems with gecko when we had the resent old mail storm.  I
didn't catch that it had not been sent to all players days later and
looked back and remembered the problems than night.

Now from our recent appeal if the problem lay with gecko, then the
announcement was not late.

But by Wes's ruling on this appeal, if it was due to a mail sneeze on the
player's mail server then it was late.

Murphy however argues otherwise:

>On CFJ 1229, I move to overturn and reassign.
>
>My reasons are the same reasons that led me to call for the
>Appeal of CFJ 1229.  I find the following interpretation
>plausible, and Judge Elysion did not address it in eir Judgement.
>
>   * "<Player> sends <message> to the PF" is equivalent to "<Player>
>     sends <message> towards the PF, in such a way that e reasonably
>     expects it to be received in the PF soon afterward".
>
>   * "<Player> distributes <message> to the PF" is equivalent to the
>     same thing.
>
>   * Given the above, Taral's actions on June 1 were sufficient to
>     distribute the Batch at that time.
>
>This is not to say that the Rules *should* work this way.  I believe
>the Rules should specify whether they are keying on a Player sending
>a message, the PF mechanisms (gecko et al) receiving it, and an
>individual recipient Player receiving it.  I intend to work up a
>proto soon.

Looking closely at this matter, I find there is ambiguity. There are
concerns that Elysion's brief argument did not address. I know that my
judgements have been overturned before for having insufficient arguments
when the arguments I presented were more extensive than those given by
Elysion in this matter. Murphy's argument shows that there are issues
which need to be addressed that were not. I move to overturn and reassign.

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