============================  Appeal 1937a  ============================

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               ehird
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               REMAND



Appeal initiated:                       08 May 2008 22:44:15 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          11 May 2008 05:01:44 GMT
Assigned to ehird (panelist):           11 May 2008 05:01:44 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          11 May 2008 05:01:44 GMT
Murphy moves to REMAND:                 18 May 2008 11:04:03 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND:                 20 May 2008 08:52:42 GMT
ehird moves to REMAND:                  20 May 2008 19:16:47 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                21 May 2008 23:28:10 GMT


Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

ais523 wrote:

> I Support the following ruling in the appeal of CFJ 1937a:
> {{{
> The appellants' arguments are correct; the judgement given
> by Wooble disregards all the arguments against, including
> some that rebut eir position exactly. A proper judgement
> should take all the possibilities into account. Therefore,
> SUSTAIN would be unreasonable, and with the amount of
> disregard shown for a reasoned judgement here, REMAND would
> seem unlikely to give a well-reasoned judgement on an
> important question such as this.
> Anyway, this particular question is largely moot, given that
> if root ever were contestmaster of the equation of CFJ 1932,
> root is not contestmaster now (because by CFJ 1947, and by
> the fact that CFJ 1932a was judged REASSIGNED, that equation
> no longer exists). However, it does affect various game-state
> issues (in particular, the Note holdings of root and the
> number of points ais523 has), and so knowing whether root was
> contestmaster of that equation at the time the CFJ was called
> is still important. The evidence each way is not clear enough
> to judge in the remaining time left to judge this appeal
> (especially if CFJ 1936 is appealed), and therefore this appeal
> panel does not wish to OVERRULE in any particular direction.
> Therefore, this panel rules REASSIGN.
> }}}

Skimming the a-d archive, I only found one counterargument specifically
pertaining to root's status as contestmaster (as opposed to the
judgement's status as a contest):

root wrote:

> contestmastership is not really an attribute of a contest
> but more an attribute of a first-class player, and so not one of the
> things that could be set as an attribute of the binding agreements
> parties can make.

Since each contest is similarly restricted to having exactly one
contestmaster, this doesn't really hold water.

but this does not contradict Wooble's judgement.

I do not support the attempt to cause the panel to rule REASSIGN.

I agree that there is sufficient confusion to make AFFIRM or OVERRULE
inappropriate.  I intend, with the support of the other panelists, to
cause the panel to rule REMAND.

I may change my mind if additional counterarguments specific to this
issue are brought to my attention.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Although many of the arguemnts were expressed in terms of whether the equation
could be made a contract or not, many of them implied the contestmastership
question as well. For instance, one major argument that root and I were making
is typified in the message archived at <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mail
man/private/agora-discussion/2008-May/014799.html> (there may be better
examples), talking about how a contest is a possible agreement that the
parties could make; that agreement would also involve installing root as
contestmaster (because the way to make that agreement would have been by rule
2136), although the point was not stressed until now. So the arguments are
relevant to whether root is contestmaster.

Wooble's judgement reads
I rule FALSE.  Rule 2136 regulates how a player can become the
contestmaster of a contest, and root used none of the mechanisms
provided in that rule to do so.

The judgement fails to address the argument that rule 2169 is capable of
creating a contest, with root as contestmaster because rule 2136 would have
allowed em to create a contest with em as contestmaster, without input from
the other players. This argument is clearly relevant to the case, and yet
Wooble did not even mention it, not to rebut it, or to explain how it didn't
apply (and as I stated earlier, it rebuts Wooble's argument exactly, and
therefore should itself be rebutted before a judgement of FALSE can be made).
Failure to address the arguments is the reason root gave for calling the
appeal in the first place.

The precedent of CFJ 1651a (as comex mentioned in eir appeal) is that when a
judgement illustrates a lack of understanding of the issues, it should be
reassigned; this judgement instead illustrates a lack of consideration for the
arguments, but is a similar problem. If the opposing arguments are irrelevant,
I would expect a well-reasoned judgement to explain why they are irrelevant.


Panelist ais523's Arguments:

I Support Murphy's attempt to cause the appeal panel in CFJ 1937a to rule
REMAND. Arguments in agora-discussion have convinced me that this is probably
a better judgement than REASSIGN in this case. However, I state for the record
that I would prefer Wooble to address all the major arguments made against eir
position in eir replacement judgement, or else explain why e believes they are
not relevant.