============================  Appeal 1684a  ============================


Panelist:                               Human Point Two
Decision:                               OVERRULE/TRUE


Panelist:                               Zefram
Decision:                               OVERRULE/TRUE


Panelist:                               BobTHJ
Decision:                               OVERRULE/TRUE

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       19 Jun 2007 22:11:14 GMT
Assigned to Human Point Two (panelist):
                                        18 Jul 2007 20:48:01 GMT
Assigned to Zefram (panelist):          18 Jul 2007 20:48:01 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist):          18 Jul 2007 20:48:01 GMT
Final decision (OVERRULE/TRUE):         02 Aug 2007 21:19:13 GMT
BobTHJ moves to OVERRULE/TRUE:          02 Aug 2007 21:19:13 GMT
Human Point Two moves to OVERRULE/TRUE:
                                        02 Aug 2007 21:19:13 GMT
Zefram moves to OVERRULE/TRUE:          02 Aug 2007 21:19:13 GMT

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

Panelist Human Point Two's Arguments:

[submitted by the panel by means of Human Point Two]

Eris's judgement of CFJ 1684 may be summed up as follows:

  a) "Person" is not primarily used in legal contexts.
  b) "Person" is not defined according to Rule 754 (3), but
       according to Rule 754 (4).
  c) "Person" means "a human being" (wordnet).

The Pineapple Partnership's purported judgement of CFJ 1623
may be summed up as follows:

  a) It is unclear whether "person" is primarily used in legal contexts.
  b) The overall application of Rule 754 is unclear.
  c) Game custom holds that humanity is irrelevant (e.g. Blob, the
       avocado CFJ) and ability to communicate in English is sufficient.
  d) "Person", when used by the rules, means "legal person".

Let's re-evaluate how Rule 754 applies:

  * Wikipedia gives the classical definition "a human being regarded as
    an individual".  It cites modern disputes in law and other fields,
    but does not comment on whether the classical definition remains
    primary.

  * dictionary.com's definitions 1-6 and 9 pertain to individuals; of
    these, 1-3 and 4-6 explicitly mention humans.  Definition 11
    pertains to legal persons.

  * The American Heritage Dictionary's definitions 1-5 pertain
    to individuals; of these, 1 and 4 explicitly mention
    humans.  Definition 6 pertains to legal persons.

  * WordNet does not mention legal persons.

  * Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary does not mention legal
    persons.

  * Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law's definition 1 pertains to
    natural persons, 2 pertains to the body and possibly clothing of a
    human being (e.g. "had drugs on his person"), 3 pertains to legal
    persons.

  * West's Encyclopedia of American Law begins "In general usage, a
    human being; by statute, however," and proceeds to discuss legal
    persons.

I still find multiple ambiguities here:

  a) Should Rule 754 (3)'s "primarily used in ... legal contexts" be
     interpreted as "primarily used by Agora in legal contexts", or
     "primarily used by the English-speaking population in general in
     legal contexts"?  In the former case, Rule 754 (3) applies; in
     the latter, it does not.

  b) If Rule 754 (3) does not apply, then should Rule 754 (4)'s
     "ordinary-language meaning" be interpreted as "primary
     ordinary-language meaning", or "whichever ordinary-language
     meaning is most appropriate according to other standards"?  In
     the latter case, is "legal person" sufficiently common to be
     classified as an ordinary-language meaning, albeit not the
     primary one?

In light of these ambiguities, game custom applies, and the
remainder of the Pineapple Partnership's arguments are thus
justified.  Accordingly, the panel's judgement is OVERRULE
with a replacement judgement of TRUE.

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