==========================  Equity Case 1932  ==========================

    I haven't left the contract at my first opportunity, as is expected
    of me.

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

Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              

Appeal:                                 1932a
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              

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

History:

Called by root:                         29 Apr 2008 20:42:27 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     30 Apr 2008 05:28:16 GMT
Parties informed:                       04 May 2008 10:29:41 GMT
Pre-trial phase ended:                  07 May 2008 18:36:13 GMT
Judged  by ais523:                      07 May 2008 18:38:18 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         08 May 2008 19:57:31 GMT
Appealed by Wooble:                     08 May 2008 20:03:13 GMT
Appealed by woggle:                     08 May 2008 20:04:10 GMT
Appeal 1932a:                           09 May 2008 15:52:26 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   13 May 2008 04:00:08 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      16 May 2008 05:46:16 GMT
Judged  by ehird:                       16 May 2008 16:41:15 GMT

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

OK, it looks like this case is applicable now. My judgement is the
following contract, which is a contest, and has root as contestmaster:

{{{
1) It being entirely within the power of the initiator of CFJ 1932 to
resolve the alleged inequity in that case, e SHALL make a reasonable
effort to do so within a timely fashion.

2) This is a public contract.

3) This contract is a pledge if and only if it has exactly one member.

4) Any first-class player CAN join this contract by announcement.  Any
party to this contract CAN leave it by announcement, as long as that
party has continuously been a party to this contract for the preceding
168 hours.

5) The founding members of this contract are the members root and
ais523.  A founding member CAN amend this paragraph to change the list
of founding members, without objection from any founding member, or
with the consent of all other founding members.  ("Founding member"
always has this meaning within the scope of this contract, rather than
any meaning it might have more generally within Agora.)

6) Upon the request of a founding member, the contestmaster SHALL as
soon as possible award points as requested up to the limit allowed by
the rules, as long as the number of points requested is no more than the
limit of points awardable by the rules per Agoran week divided by the
number of founding members, as long as the requestor has not made such
a request within the previous 168 hours. Such awards SHALL
be made on a first-come, first-serve basis.

7) A founding member CAN amend the text of this contract with the
agreement of all other founding members.  When this occurs, any member
who has not explicitly consented to the change is excused from the
contract.
}}}

I believe that this is a reasonably equitable solution; all parties
to the contact being judged on have privatly indicated that they are
willing to be bound by it.

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

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I posit that it is inappropriate to apply an equity judgement that
any reasonable person would find goes "beyond equity" (or as root
admits, "equity with gravy") in applying a benefit to one or more
parties.

I copy root's counterarguments for my position here:
> In a case such as this one, however, I firmly
> believe that SUSTAIN would be the only appropriate judgement, since 1)
> the contract is at least not inherently inequitable and 2)
> equitability should be measured in the eyes of the parties to the
> contract.  I would probably support a measure to make judgements that
> are "equitable, with gravy" be inappropriate.

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

Judge ehird's Arguments:

This is my judgement in CFJ 1932. My judgement is the following contest,
with root as contestmaster:

{{{
1) It being entirely within the power of the initiator of CFJ 1932 to
resolve the alleged inequity in that case, e SHALL make a reasonable
effort to do so within a timely fashion.

2) This is a public contract.

3) This contract is a pledge if and only if it has exactly one member.

4) Any first-class player CAN join this contract by announcement.  Any
party to this contract CAN leave it by announcement, as long as that
party has continuously been a party to this contract for the preceding
168 hours.

5) The founding members of this contract are the members root, ehird and
ais523.  A founding member CAN amend this paragraph to change the list
of founding members, without objection from any founding member, or
with the consent of all other founding members.  ("Founding member"
always has this meaning within the scope of this contract, rather than
any meaning it might have more generally within Agora.)

6) Upon the request of a founding member, the contestmaster SHALL as
soon as possible award points as requested up to the limit allowed by
the rules, as long as the number of points requested is no more than the
limit of points awardable by the rules per Agoran week divided by the
number of founding members, as long as the requestor has not made such
a request within the previous 168 hours. Such awards SHALL
be made on a first-come, first-serve basis.

7) A founding member CAN amend the text of this contract with the
agreement of all other founding members.  When this occurs, any member
who has not explicitly consented to the change is excused from the
contract.
}}}

I believe this is a reasonably equitable solution.

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