============================  Appeal 1903a  ============================

Panelist:                               root

Panelist:                               woggle
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               omd

Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               AFFIRM



Appeal initiated:                       07 Feb 2008 22:48:41 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            07 Feb 2008 22:50:19 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist):          07 Feb 2008 22:50:19 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist):             07 Feb 2008 22:50:19 GMT
root recused (panelist):                19 Feb 2008 00:36:07 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          19 Feb 2008 00:36:07 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          13 Mar 2008 04:28:22 GMT
omd recused (panelist):                 13 Mar 2008 04:28:22 GMT
Murphy moves to AFFIRM:                 15 Mar 2008 03:17:12 GMT
Wooble moves to AFFIRM:                 15 Mar 2008 13:48:28 GMT
woggle moves to AFFIRM:                 16 Mar 2008 05:42:56 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM):                16 Mar 2008 06:02:52 GMT


Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

Goethe's original judgement of CFJ 1903 alludes to the following

   Questions are not statements.  An inquiry case must be initiated via
   statement, and must reference a statement being inquired into, so
   Pavitra's question fails on both counts.

However, the opposite interpretation was chosen by pikhq in CFJ 1894,
then legislated by Proposal 5425 before CFJ 1903 was initiated.  Goethe
admitted having overlooked the proposal.

The remaining issue is whether a statement claiming to initiate an
inquiry case into itself (as opposed to merely a clause of itself,
e.g. "I initiate an inquiry case into the statement 'X'") can be
effective.  Goethe argued that it can't:

   Not every question is a CFJ, any more than every statement ever made
   in Agora Business is a CFJ.  A specific directive is needed: eg "I
   call for judgement on the following question:"  This directive is
   explicitly external to the statement itself.   For example, to call
   CFJ 1676, comex used the following (Message-ID:
      ' I call for judgement on the statement "this is a CFJ" '

as did woggle, for different reasons:

   The judgement is still appropriate, however, because there is not a
   general equivalence of yes/no questions and statements as some has
   suggested in the best interpretation of CFJ 1894 for this purpose.
   The question can take the role of statement (without the newer R591)
   because the added context that it is the subject of a call for
   judgement makes its interpretation unambiguous -- the only sensible
   intrepretation of the question is as the statement inquired into. But
   this is not true for actions by announcement, like making calls for
   judgement, where further context would be required to differentiate
   between a genuine non-action question and an announced action.

In the apparent absence of arguments to the contrary, the panel accepts
these interpretations and concludes that the original judgement of FALSE
was appropriate.