Index ← 1711b CFJ 1711a 1711 → text
============================  Appeal 1711a  ============================

Panelist:                               Wooble

Panelist:                               BobTHJ

Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               omd
Decision:                               REMAND

Panelist:                               pikhq
Decision:                               REMAND



Appeal initiated:                       27 Aug 2007 21:23:25 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          15 Sep 2007 19:54:03 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist):          15 Sep 2007 19:54:03 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            15 Sep 2007 19:54:03 GMT
BobTHJ recused (panelist):              24 Sep 2007 12:01:07 GMT
Wooble recused (panelist):              24 Sep 2007 12:01:07 GMT
root moves to REMAND:                   03 Oct 2007 15:43:29 GMT
omd moves to REMAND:                    03 Oct 2007 21:52:28 GMT
pikhq moves to REMAND:                  07 Oct 2007 22:00:58 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist):             08 Oct 2007 10:57:17 GMT
Assigned to pikhq (panelist):           08 Oct 2007 10:57:17 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                09 Oct 2007 00:47:11 GMT


Panelist root's Arguments:

> Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
> We have commonly accepted a published correction to a prior report as
> constituting a new report that incorporates the bulk of the prior report
> by reference.  In the present case, Murphy's second message applies a
> correction in the form of an additional set of votes to insert into the
> prior message; it is clear how adding these votes affects the totals,
> so I see no need for the revised totals to be included explicitly.

A correct tally is, however, required by R208.

> We have considerable history of accepting parts of these messages to
> be implicit.  Indeed, the assessor's present practice, extending back
> past the time that this CFJ is concerned with, is to not explicitly
> indicate "ADOPTED", "FAILED QUORUM", and so on, for each proposal, but
> to leave that implicit.  It can be easily determined by examining the
> "AI", "VI", "Quorum", and "Voters" rows, but a strict reading of rule
> 208 would require it to be stated on a row of its own.  Such a strict
> reading is contrary to game custom.  The lack of an explicit "ADOPTED"
> has not been questioned, neither in the resolution notice that this case
> is concerned with nor in the surrounding months.

This argument actually sways me toward AFFIRM.  I find the present
practice of omitting the final outcome to be quite exasperating,
especially as Gmail makes it a bit painful to view a message in a
fixed-width font.  Using the regular view, the columns do not line up,
which makes the manual calculation difficult.  If I haven't questioned
the practice before now, it is only because it hadn't occurred to me
that it might be questionable.

> Judge Eris objects that the correcting notice did not give any firm
> identification of the original notice which it augmented.  That is
> incorrect.  The correcting message includes a "References:" header,
> in which the first item is the message ID of the original notice.
> This is a normal place to expect such a reference to be found; it is
> not obfuscated in any way.  The original message could also be following
> the "In-Reply-To:" chain, which also works by message ID; the chain is
> of length two in this case, the middle link being Wooble's DF message
> which points out the error and quotes the body of the original notice
> in its entirety.

If we can't expect a player to look as far as the Subject header for
context, I think it's totally out of the question to expect em to look
in the References or In-Reply-To headers, which are automatically
hidden by most email clients.

> Judge Eris's point about message IDs was in support of eir claim that the
> correcting notice failed to clearly identify the matters to be resolved.
> Even ignoring the reference to the preceding message, the notice stated
> that it was concerned with proposals, and identified the proposals
> by number.  This is precisely the same manner in which the original
> (incorrect) notice, and all resolution notices regarding proposals,
> identify the matters to be resolved.  The judge appears to be mistaken
> on a matter of law regarding what it is that must be clearly identified.

Judge Eris was not specific about what it was that was not "clearly
identified".  R208 refers to two things that must be "clearly
identified": the matter to be resolved and the options available.
Since, as you point out, the former is clearly identified in both
messages, I think it likely that Judge Eris was referring to the

One potential argument pertaining to message continuity that was not
brought up is the precedent of CFJs 1451 and 1452.  However, those
both pertain to a single message broken up over multiple emails,
whereas this case pertains to a single message in a single email with
a subsequent correction, so it is not clear to me whether the
precedent should apply.  It would be nice to see the argument
considered, though.

> Finally, the judge argues that for the interests of the game we should
> not permit a resolution notice that does not explicitly list vote totals.
> To be explicit there is something that assessors should no doubt consider
> good advice, but I suggest that invalidating the notice for the lack is
> contrary to the interests of the game.

I find this argument to be persuasive.  However, it only rebuts half
of Judge Eris's argument, so I do not think it is by itself sufficient
to merit reversal judgement.  Overall, I'm leaning toward a judgement
of REMAND, as I would like for Judge Eris to consider the precedent of
CFJs 1451 and 1452 in eir arguments.