============================  Appeal 2822a  ============================


Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               REMAND

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       29 Jul 2010 20:03:17 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          30 Jul 2010 03:56:21 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          30 Jul 2010 03:56:21 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          30 Jul 2010 03:56:21 GMT
ais523 moves to REMAND:                 30 Jul 2010 11:01:35 GMT
Wooble moves to REMAND:                 30 Jul 2010 14:31:01 GMT
Murphy moves to REMAND:                 31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

It DOES address this.  It says that posting the proposal text alone
ISN'T enough.  But posting the two facts "Proposal 6470 has been adopted"
followed,
in the same announcement, by "here is the text of Proposal 6470: [this set of
persons] has won" IS enough, because together contains all the information
for 2186 and 2188 in one announcement.  See the list of possibilities I just
sent
to discussion.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, comex wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
> > the
> > announcement would still cause "all those persons" specified in the
> > proposal (not just those listed in the win announcement) to win.
>
> I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why,
> out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be
> present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in
> the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those
> persons".  For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text:
>
>       Upon an announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or
>       more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
>       Winning Condition of Legislation.
>
> This is the same as R2188, but with "a win announcement" changed to
> "an announcement".  Clearly, under this version, there is the
> potential for anyone to win the game by falsely claiming a proposal
> awarding em a win has been adopted-- there is no actual proposal to
> provide a set of "all those persons", but the text is only concerned
> with announcement.
>
> Why does adding the requirement that the announcement is correct
> change the referent?

Because it specifically maps the announcement to match the truthiness
of what the Proposal purports, so there are not two disjoint sets.
I don't think there are two competing sets of persons at all.  Any
person announced specifically in a win announcement must be a subset
of those referred to in the proposal (I think I say as much in the
judgement).

More gratuity:

The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
(not additional) information ("a win announcement that Proposal X has
been adopted" in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an
appeals directive to address this.  I generally consider it additive,
though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't
affect the actual judgement.

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

Panelist ais523's Arguments:

I opine REMAND without prejudice on both. The judge seems to want an
opportunity to revisit eir own reasoning in the light of recent
discussion.

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

Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

> Appellant comex's Arguments:
>
> I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why,
> out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be
> present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in
> the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those
> persons".  For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text:

G. stated in footnote #1 of eir original judgement that the first set
isn't required to be present, e.g. "Proposal 6740 was adopted and
awarded a win to one or more persons" would be enough information to be
effective.  But this isn't really an /absent/ first set; it's an
implicit first set of "same as the second set".  A truly absent first
set would look like "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted",
which both comex and G. noted as being on the borderline of enough or
not enough information.

In the case that the first set is present but different from the second,
there are two areas requiring interpretation:

  a) Does "factually correct" in Rule 2186 require the first set to
     match the second set, or merely to be a subset of it?  Can the
     first set bootstrap the subset interpretation by hijacking the
     referent of "all those persons" in Rule 2188?

  b) Is it in the best interests of the game to reward comex (for eir
     clever scam attempt) more than the other potential winners (some of
     whom may not have been paying attention at all)?  If so, does it
     outweigh the common-sense intent of Rule 2188?

Finally, comex's original "This is a win announcement:" can reasonably
be argued as applying to the entire message (e did not specify a more
limited scope), thus including eir parenthetical comment that "...the
proposal also awarded a win to other players".

I opine REMAND without prejudice.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

If I had intended it to apply to the entire message, I
would have put "This is a win announcement:" on its own line.

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