==============================  CFJ 2859  ==============================

    "Distributed Proposal 6830" refers to an undistributed proposal.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2859a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  G.

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       12 Sep 2010 18:54:44 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         13 Sep 2010 21:29:55 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      13 Sep 2010 22:37:34 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        14 Sep 2010 01:52:07 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli:                14 Sep 2010 02:07:36 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         14 Sep 2010 15:55:17 GMT
Appeal 2859a:                           14 Sep 2010 15:55:17 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     21 Sep 2010 20:30:59 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         21 Sep 2010 20:30:59 GMT
G. recused:                             03 Oct 2010 18:09:49 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     03 Oct 2010 18:10:47 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 03 Oct 2010 18:54:01 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Because a proposal (a rules-defined entity) already had the
name Distributed Proposal 6830, the power-1 rule 2161 was not powerful
enough to override the power-2 rule 1586 by causing two rules-defined
entities to have the same name, and thus it was incapable of renaming
the proposal with ID number 6830 to Distributed Proposal 6830.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

Nothing in current naming Rules explicitly allows players to give
"official" names or titles to Proposals.   Two proposals submitted
with the same "suggested title" by the proposer would still be
proposals due to R106, which overrules all of this.  The way this
works was described in detail in CFJ 1358, and the current ruleset
does not regulate proposal titles any more strongly now than it
did then.  The current common "unoffical" referent for the
undistributable proposal in question is the one listed.  TRUE.


Appellant omd's Arguments:

I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because (unlike at
the time of CFJ 1358) R106 explicitly mentions "title":

      A player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a
      body of text and an associated title with a clear indication
      that it is intended to become a proposal,


Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I support and do so, requesting REMAND.  -G.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

As pointed out in 2859a, proposal titles are explicitly mentioned by
Rule 106.  Thus, either of the following could reasonably have been
referred to as "Distributed Proposal 6830":

  a) coppro's proposal with ID number 6830, name "Distributed Proposal
     6830", and title "We Don't Need No Stinkin' Voting", which was
     neither distributable nor undistributable (it had already been

  b) ais523's proposal with title "Distributed Proposal 6830", which was

However, without further context that clearly favors one over the other,
"Distributed Proposal 6830" does not unambiguously refer to either of
these proposals.