============================  Appeal 2012a  ============================


Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Machiavelli
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               woggle
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       26 Jun 2008 00:52:04 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          26 Jun 2008 03:31:47 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli (panelist):     26 Jun 2008 03:31:47 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist):          26 Jun 2008 03:31:47 GMT
Murphy moves to REMAND:                 02 Jul 2008 17:21:24 GMT
woggle moves to REMAND:                 03 Jul 2008 00:09:36 GMT
Machiavelli moves to REMAND:            03 Jul 2008 14:51:47 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                03 Jul 2008 16:46:29 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

I argue that ALREADY TRIED and its Rule 101 buddy are not appropriate,
as failing to comply with the contract up until the first case was
called is not the same as failing to comply after the first case was
called. If I'm required to perform some action as soon as possible and
I fail to do it within 8 days, a sentence such as APOLOGY may be
appropriate, but this doesn't mean that that same sentence is all that
failing to perform the action will ever warrant, and that serving this
sentence absolves me of my responsibility; if another year passes and
I still haven't performed the action, a much more severe penalty is
warranted.

In other words, continued breach of the rules requires continued
punishment, just as repeated breach of the rules requires repeated
punishment. Robbing the bank today is not the same crime as robbing it
yesterday.

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

Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

With the support of Ivan Hope and woggle, I intend to cause the
panel to judge REMAND in CFJ 2011a and CFJ 2012a, instructing the
judge to weigh the defendant's argument of June 26:

> Ignoring the fact that I spent my 50 VP on **nothing** (pikhq took my
> VP, called me a fool, and left the Vote Market, no longer obligated to
> perform the action which I paid all those VP for em to do),

against the amount of effort that e previously made to address
the various aspects of the situation.

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