============================  Appeal 1882a  ============================


Panelist:                               Levi
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       29 Jan 2008 22:38:05 GMT
Assigned to Levi (panelist):            30 Jan 2008 05:32:30 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              30 Jan 2008 05:32:30 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            30 Jan 2008 05:32:30 GMT
root moves to REMAND:                   30 Jan 2008 21:35:12 GMT
G. moves to REMAND:                     30 Jan 2008 22:19:03 GMT
Levi moves to REMAND:                   30 Jan 2008 22:43:08 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                30 Jan 2008 23:00:31 GMT

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

Panelist root's Arguments:

Appellant Zefram's Arguments:

> Per R754 that definition applies *by default*.

> It makes perfect sense as a modifier to make "register" refer to
> something other than the default (registration as a player), specifically
> to refer to listing in the registrar's report as a watcher.  You have
> completely omitted to address whether such modifying clauses can overcome
> a rule-supplied default meaning.

In ordinary language, modifiers can indeed play a role in determining
the base meaning of a word.  For example, the word "run" means two
entirely different things in the sentences "I will run for President"
and "I will run around the block".  The question then is whether the
same applies in selecting non-rule-based definitions over rule-based
definitions.  This point is not addressed by woggle's judgement.  E
does argue that "Pavitra's awareness that e might become a player
through this statement suggests that there is no need to attempt to
find other meanings of "to be registered".  However, it is a custom in
Agora that form is more important than intention when interpreting
actions, so I do not consider this treatment sufficient.

For these reasons, I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND in CFJ 1882a.

> You've completely omitted to address whether there is adequate basis
> for the word "watcher", when used as a singular proper name, to refer
> to any particular entity.

I don't think that there is a significant omission here.  The
precedent from CFJ 1361 is that "a nickname is a name that a Player
chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the
full range of Agoran contexts".  The first condition has not been
called into question here, while the second was indirectly addressed
by the prior judge's argument that the CFJ's statement is not
ambiguous.

Appellant pikhq's Arguments:

> I SUPPORT, recommending a) remand to woggle b) woggle, please proto this. :p

I'll just note here that in fact woggle did proto this judgement, and
the objections leading to this appeal were not raised until it was
made official four and a half days later.

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

Panelist G.'s Arguments:

I agree to this judicial decision of REMAND, with the added note that I don't
find Woggle's judgement inappropriate, but that there are two competing ideas
here:  (1) Judge Steve's admonition (CFJ 1263) that we shouldn't be too nit-
picky about attempts to register (which is a little contrary to root's comment
below about depending on form rather than intent), versus (2) The R101
requirement to fully ensure that consent is given to join.  For the latter, it
might be reasonable to use after-the-fact evidence of consent/intent, namely
that "watcher" has acted as a player since trying to register.  So it is in
fact relevant to consider intent.  (As someone admonished in a recent case,
why not just ask em?)

In any case, more consideration would help.

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

Panelist Levi's Arguments:

I agree to REMAND also.

Is it also worth considering the possibility that the registration notice
registered a player 'Pavitra', rather than 'watcher'? (I believe this was the
initial interpretation from the registrar?)

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