On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> I opine AFFIRM, and I would like a Concurring Opinion on this one. >>> >>> -coppro >> >> You mean you would like to have a concurring opinion, or you would like to >> write one? :) >> >> I think if I officially opine AFFIRM it will prevent us from including an >> official concurrence, but I agree with affirm and if you write a reasonable >> concurrence I'll support the Panel publishing it. -G. > > I want one written; I will do it myself if no one else does before I get to > it. >
How's this for a simple concurring opinion: Minor research into the term (which could have been performed by the judge) suggests that "to zoop" something generally means to activate an act-on-behalf contract with respect to a dependent action (particularly with respect to standing instructions for getting Support numbers for a particular class of action). With neither a contract nor a dependent action referred to, ais523's assertion that Agorans "have a basic idea of what it's meant to mean" is false. This Panel really has no idea. The situation is so far removed from the original that the term's relationship to a meaningful action has broken down. Whether situations slightly closer to the original would work - e.g. at least somehow involving act-on-behalf or somehow involving dependent actions - must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the original judge, without further research, didn't understand the meaning is an argument towards the term's growing obscurity with time, but that is secondary as it is likely that many Agorans still understand the original context of the term. Error rating: coppro propose one? -G.
