============================ Appeal 1234a ============================
Appeal initiated: 28 Jul 2000 09:20:27 GMT
Assigned to Taral (panelist): 30 Jul 2000 03:23:59 GMT
Assigned to Wes (panelist): 30 Jul 2000 03:23:59 GMT
Assigned to Chuck (panelist): 30 Jul 2000 03:23:59 GMT
Taral moves to SUSTAIN: 30 Jul 2000 16:37:29 GMT
Wes moves to SUSTAIN: 30 Jul 2000 22:15:00 GMT
Chuck moves to SUSTAIN: 03 Aug 2000 15:47:20 GMT
Final decision (SUSTAIN): 03 Aug 2000 15:47:20 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by lee:
[lee's assignment to the appeal was invalid]
I am sorely tempted to Sustain Kelly's judgement without comment.
I do hereby Sustain Kelly's judgement of true.
1) I believe Kudo's are property. I have demonstrated this by issuing the
Treasuror's miscellaneous property report which included kudos. Other
players have also demonstrated their belief in this as well. (game custom
2) I "buy" the argument that because the Rules say players poses kudos
then kudos are property. (Rules say so)
3)I think property is most useful as a blanket concept. If we do not wish
a type of property to move freely, we can make Rules to restrict its
transfer. I don't want endless niggling arguments over what things are
property, there are so many better aspects of the game to have endless
niggling arguments over. (best interests of the game)
Panelist Taral's Arguments:
It is my opinion that, although the Arguments were notably absent, the
Judgement itself is correct, and there is no reason to believe that Kelly
failed to consider any relevant aspect of the case, especially considering
eir more recent comments.
Panelist Wes's Arguments:
First, we will consider the accuracy of Kelly's Judgement. It is our
opinion that the Statement is trivially TRUE. The Rules state that
Kudos are possessed, and that anything possessed is Property. We will
refrain, with difficulty, from saying "duh" over and over.
Second, we will consider the correctness of Kelly's Judgement. The
Rules use the word "correct" in a few different contexts, including
a description of accuracy, of proper procedure (correct and legal),
and even the phrase "correct in its particulars" appears once, implying
we're not exactly sure what. This leaves us with the conclusion that
the normal english usage of the word continues, enveloping all of
these concepts and more.
In this particular case, since it is our opinion that the Statement
was so obviously TRUE, any Arguments would have been at least a little
redundant. Although we strongly prefer that a Judge provide at least
a little nudge in the right direction for later readers of the CFJ,
we do not feel that their absence in this particular case are
sufficiently far from "correct" to warrent overturning the Judgement.
We do take this opportunity, though, to point a finger and make a
terribly distasteful face at Kelly, a somewhat less forceful reminder
that e really should have included Arguments regardless, even if it
was just the word "duh" and a couple of Rules quotes for evidence.
Then we officially SUSTAIN the Judgement.
Panelist Wes's Evidence:
Rule 1942/0 (Power=1)
Any entity which the Rules permit to be possessed by another
entity is a Property.
Rule 1062/1 (Power=1)
Kudos and Honour
Let there be an Entity called the Kudo (plural: Kudos). The
amount of Kudos a Player holds is called eir Honour. All Players
possess at all times an integral number of Kudos not less than 0.
Panelist Chuck's Arguments:
I am in agreement with Wes's arguments on the CFJ and so shall
not repeat them here--consider them incorporated by reference.