Can the record show prejudice somehow? On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2859 > > =================== CFJ 2859 (Interest Index = 1) ==================== > > "Distributed Proposal 6830" refers to an undistributed proposal. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: ais523 > > Judge: G. > Judgement: TRUE > > Appeal: 2859a > Decision: REMAND > > Judge: G. > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > 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 Tanner L. Swett: 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 > Remanded to G.: 21 Sep 2010 20:30:59 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. > > ======================================================================== > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2859a > > ================= Appeal 2859a (Interest Index = 0) ================== > > Panelist: Taral > Decision: REMAND > > Panelist: Wooble > Decision: REMAND > > Panelist: omd > Decision: REMAND > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 14 Sep 2010 15:55:17 GMT > Assigned to Taral (panelist): 17 Sep 2010 04:36:20 GMT > Assigned to Wooble (panelist): 17 Sep 2010 04:36:20 GMT > Assigned to omd (panelist): 17 Sep 2010 04:36:20 GMT > Taral moves to REMAND: 17 Sep 2010 16:40:14 GMT > Wooble moves to REMAND: 21 Sep 2010 15:18:37 GMT > omd moves to REMAND: 21 Sep 2010 20:30:59 GMT > Final decision (REMAND): 21 Sep 2010 20:30:59 GMT > > ======================================================================== > > 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. > > ======================================================================== >
-- Taral <tar...@gmail.com> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
