==============================  CFJ 1831  ==============================

    The above was a valid vote on the stability of Rulekeepor.


Caller:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 1831a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  G.

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1831b
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  Taral

Judge:                                  Iammars
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by pikhq:                        10 Dec 2007 01:25:39 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         10 Dec 2007 10:24:26 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      10 Dec 2007 18:22:07 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         10 Dec 2007 18:32:23 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     10 Dec 2007 18:39:17 GMT
Appealed by root:                       10 Dec 2007 18:59:16 GMT
Appeal 1831a:                           10 Dec 2007 20:34:09 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     11 Dec 2007 23:12:38 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         12 Dec 2007 02:26:24 GMT
G. recused:                             20 Dec 2007 03:35:34 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      20 Dec 2007 03:35:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by Taral:                  20 Dec 2007 17:04:49 GMT
Appealed by root:                       20 Dec 2007 18:06:26 GMT
Appealed by Zefram:                     20 Dec 2007 18:08:46 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         20 Dec 2007 19:41:20 GMT
Appeal 1831b:                           20 Dec 2007 20:26:16 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     20 Jan 2008 03:54:49 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      20 Jan 2008 04:18:29 GMT
Taral recused:                          29 Jan 2008 06:36:55 GMT
Assigned to Iammars:                    29 Jan 2008 07:42:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by Iammars:                05 Feb 2008 04:00:34 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

On Sunday 09 December 2007 18:21:31 comex wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2007 7:53 PM, Levi Stephen <levi.stephen@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > I intend without 2 objections to flip the stability of Rulekeepor to
> > Perpetual.
> >
> > Levi
> >
> http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2338927


Gratuitous Evidence by omd:

The link in question:
(1) had "objection" in the URL
(2) led to a page which called itself an "Objection" but in fact
contained an attempt to vote SUPPORT on the action


Judge G.'s Arguments:

When I first saw this message before the CFJ, I didn't follow the link,
but the word "objection" in the link led me to the conclusion that it
was a piece of humor, falling within the bounds of clear communication,
leading to the definition of an "objection".  Following the link, I agreed,
and was prepared to (trivially) uphold the action, until the text "I support
this" came up.  It is clear that this was an attempt to confuse and confound.

It is tempting to judge this as a single, ambiguous message, and throw it
out.  However, following the precedent in CFJ 1267, it is reasonable for an
observer to infer an ordering in two confounded but separate actions, which
in this case supports a valid OBJECT as the first action.

This court finds TRUE.

Note:  In previous versions of dependent actions, a vote of support
was taking as implicitly withdrawing objection and vice versa (as by common
definition in the context of parliamentary procedure, one could not
simultaneously object to and support a measure).  It's not clear in the
current ruleset if a "support" is an implicit public retraction of an
"objection" as per R683(d), so this court takes no view on whether the
second "support" withdrew the initial objection or not.  It is a "valid"
vote of support on its own, but it may or may not have implicitly withdrawn
the objection.


Appellant G.'s Arguments:

Oh yikes, I just realized, that by my own logic, the "above" as a
whole was actually two valid votes (though the second one might not be
counted, it's still a valid ballot).  The way the CFJ statement is
phrased implies "exactly one" not "at least one", so I think my
argument  requires a FALSE.  I intend to appeal this judgement with
two support, recommending a REMAND with the trivial task of matching
judgement with argument.  -Goethe


Judge Taral's Arguments:

As per appellate instruction, I judge FALSE.


Appellant root's Arguments:

On Dec 20, 2007 11:02 AM, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org> wrote:
> Taral wrote:
> >As per appellate instruction, I judge FALSE.
> I note that this judgement of CFJ 1831 means that the case doesn't
> properly address the matter that was originally in controversy.
> I disagree with Goethe's reasoning, because I think that a URL on its
> own does not constitute any vote at all.  I agree with the judgement of
> FALSE, however, so appeal is not appropriate.  New CFJ, anyone?

Now that we've got concurring opinions, probably the most appropriate
thing would be to appeal and let the panel affirm.


Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I support this (I was intending to reconsider the remand along Zefram's
arguments, that's why I waited too long to judge).  -Goethe


Judge Iammars's Arguments:

There are five possibilites that this attempt at a vote could be. They are:
A1. No Vote
A2. A Vote of SUPPORT.
A3. A Vote of OBJECT.
A4. A Vote of both SUPPORT and OBJECT, with SUPPORT overriding.
A5. A Vote of both SUPPORT and OBJECT, with OBJECT overriding.

There are also six characteristics of the message that have to be considered.
These are:
B1. The fact that the message contains nothing but a URL for a web page.
B2. Part of the webpage is not authored by comex.
B3. The word "objection" is in the URL.
B4. The relevant text of the message is in a flash document.
B5. The word "objection" appears at the beginning of the flash document.
B6. The phrase "I SUPPORT this" appears at the end of the flash document.

Firstly, we can dismiss B3 as a factor. A URL is a name of a page online, so
merely saying the URL doesn't constitute a vote of OBJECT because of it's
name, just like if someone was named "IraqWarSupporter," merely mentioning eir
name would not constitute a vote of SUPPORT.
Secondly, is the question of whether or not the URL is the same as saying
whatever the URL points to. If it is, B1 isn't relevant. If it isn't, B1 then
forces a decision of A1. The best comparison this has is quoting another
player's message. If a player quotes another player's message, it is
considered as that player saying that for actions if the person specifies it
in the non-quoted body of the message. comex didn't mention that any actions
in the URL should be taken. Therefore, A1 is the case and I judge FALSE.
Just for completeness, B2 doesn't matter because people often use quotes to
perform actions of which they weren't the author.
B4 would cancel out any vote made by the flash document due to the fact that
not all computers can view it. I often post from a public terminal, and some
of the computers I post from are so behind the times that they don't hhave the
proper flash software.
B5 and B6 together result to A1, because it is unclear whether comex meant to
SUPPORT or OBJECT.and according to Rule 683, "The ballot clearly identifies
the option selected by the voter [in order to count.]" Clearly, this does not
clearly identify which one comex means.