============================  Appeal 1863a  ============================

Panelist:                               omd
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               REMAND



Appeal initiated:                       15 Jan 2008 00:22:27 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist):             15 Jan 2008 00:34:08 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          15 Jan 2008 00:34:08 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            15 Jan 2008 00:34:08 GMT
Murphy moves to REMAND:                 15 Jan 2008 05:54:09 GMT
omd moves to REMAND:                    19 Jan 2008 17:45:32 GMT
root moves to REMAND:                   21 Jan 2008 01:48:39 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                21 Jan 2008 03:21:06 GMT


Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

In BobTHJ's judgement of CFJ 1860, e explicitly cites the last
paragraph of Rule 2159, and accurately discusses its direct
interpretation (though e missed some indirect possibilities, e.g.
that Steve Wallace represents a nomic).  In eir gratuituous
arguments for CFJ 1863, e mentions it again.  E is clearly not
unaware of it.

However, in both cases, e goes on to argue that this paragraph
(which sets down the letter of the law) is "largely irrelevant"
in the face of the first paragraph of the same rule (which sets
down the conceptual purpose of protective decrees).  This suggests
the belief that intent can take precedence over explicit statement,
a stance that Agora has long since rejected.

I'm not sure whether BobTHJ was being disingenuous, or simply
confused due to the high volume of recent activity in Agora and/or
other nomics in which e plays.  EXCUSED on 1863 is inappropriate in
the first case, appropriate in the second [*].  I recommend that
H. Judge Goethe consider this question when preparing eir second

[*] UNAWARE may also be appropriate in the second case.  CFJ 1804
suggests EXCUSED for good-faith inappropriate judgements, but that
judgement was delivered before UNAWARE was adopted, and I believe
its arguments now implicitly suggest UNAWARE as being equally
appropriate in such cases.


Panelist omd's Arguments:

The judge's arguments were somewhat reasonable, as laid out in the
original judgement of CFJ 1863.  As long as they have a modicum of
reasonableness, we should assume good faith for the purposes of
violating rule 2158.  I do not at all suggest GUILTY!  However,
- CFJ 1860 has not been judged for a second time, so we have not
established that the original judgement was even inappropriate.
INNOCENT may therefore be appropriate for 1863.
- Otherwise, I support the portion of Murphy's arguments that suggest
that UNAWARE may be more appropriate than EXCUSED.


Panelist root's Arguments:

Having reread the prior judge's arguments a week later, the finding of
good faith in the defendant's judgement seems reasonable to me.  In
particular, BobTHJ's defense leads me to believe that e misunderstood
the applicability of Rule 2159 to the case at hand.  In it, e repeats
eir CFJ 1860 argument to the effect that it is impossible to violate
Rule 2159 in the way described, because Steve Wallace is not a
protectorate, and it is therefore impossible to issue a protective
decree to em in the first place.  This is clearly incorrect, since if
Steve Wallace is a nomic, then it is illegal to claim to em that a
document addressed to *any* protectorate is a protective decree.
However, I think it illustrates that BobTHJ's bad reasoning in this
case was not willful.

However, I do believe that the prior judge should also consider the
nature of the bribe on which BobTHJ's judgement was apparently based.
E was evidently willing to judge either TRUE or FALSE, which are
mutually exclusive judgements, based upon whichever way the bribe
went.  This is evidence of bad faith on BobTHJ's part that went
unaddressed by the prior judge.