I agree to this judicial decision of REMAND, with the added note that I don't find Woggle's judgement inappropriate, but that there are two competing ideas here: (1) Judge Steve's admonition (CFJ 1263) that we shouldn't be too nit- picky about attempts to register (which is a little contrary to root's comment below about depending on form rather than intent), versus (2) The R101 requirement to fully ensure that consent is given to join. For the latter, it might be reasonable to use after-the-fact evidence of consent/intent, namely that "watcher" has acted as a player since trying to register. So it is in fact relevant to consider intent. (As someone admonished in a recent case, why not just ask em?)
In any case, more consideration would help. -Goethe On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1882a > > Appellant Zefram's Arguments: > >> Per R754 that definition applies *by default*. > >> It makes perfect sense as a modifier to make "register" refer to >> something other than the default (registration as a player), specifically >> to refer to listing in the registrar's report as a watcher. You have >> completely omitted to address whether such modifying clauses can overcome >> a rule-supplied default meaning. > > In ordinary language, modifiers can indeed play a role in determining > the base meaning of a word. For example, the word "run" means two > entirely different things in the sentences "I will run for President" > and "I will run around the block". The question then is whether the > same applies in selecting non-rule-based definitions over rule-based > definitions. This point is not addressed by woggle's judgement. E > does argue that "Pavitra's awareness that e might become a player > through this statement suggests that there is no need to attempt to > find other meanings of "to be registered". However, it is a custom in > Agora that form is more important than intention when interpreting > actions, so I do not consider this treatment sufficient. > > For these reasons, I intend to cause the panel to judge REMAND in CFJ 1882a. > >> You've completely omitted to address whether there is adequate basis >> for the word "watcher", when used as a singular proper name, to refer >> to any particular entity. > > I don't think that there is a significant omission here. The > precedent from CFJ 1361 is that "a nickname is a name that a Player > chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the > full range of Agoran contexts". The first condition has not been > called into question here, while the second was indirectly addressed > by the prior judge's argument that the CFJ's statement is not > ambiguous. > > Appellant pikhq's Arguments: > >> I SUPPORT, recommending a) remand to woggle b) woggle, please proto this. :p > > I'll just note here that in fact woggle did proto this judgement, and > the objections leading to this appeal were not raised until it was > made official four and a half days later. > > -root >
