============================ Appeal 1777a ============================
Appeal initiated: 12 Nov 2007 00:25:51 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 12 Nov 2007 10:10:59 GMT
Assigned to pikhq (panelist): 12 Nov 2007 10:10:59 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist): 12 Nov 2007 10:10:59 GMT
root moves to AFFIRM: 12 Nov 2007 17:20:01 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM: 12 Nov 2007 18:41:05 GMT
pikhq moves to AFFIRM: 18 Nov 2007 02:25:45 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM): 18 Nov 2007 05:11:45 GMT
Panelist root's Arguments:
Excerpt of Judge Goddess Eris's Arguments:
> Upon careful examination of the rules, I find only two interpretations
> of the Rules plausible:
> 1. Contests are contracts and therefore require 2 parties to exist, or
> 2. Contests are not binding.
> The crux of the question is whether R2136 contests are also R1742
> contracts. Based upon the form (parties and change of parties) and
> intent of R2136, I find that they are in fact R1742 contracts.
> Therefore, Partnership 1's Contest did not come into existence until
> the first contestant joined it. Since there was no time between that
> and the dissolution of the contest, this lends extra weight to the
> caller's arguments.
This portion of the judgement has been shown to be spurious; that the
contest did not officially exist until the AFO joined it does not mean
that others could not have joined it in the intervening time.
However, the judgement does not rest on this argument alone. The
> The nature of "agreement" is somewhat nebulous -- even R1742 does not
> specifically define what constitutes an agreement. The caller argues
> that agreement is not just the text, but also the way in which the
> agreement is executed. Although this broadening is not specifically
> supported by the rules, it is also not contrary to the rules, and I
> believe it to be in the best interests of the game.
> Therefore I judge the statement FALSE.
This does not seem incoherent or unrelated to me. The judge accepts
the initiator's arguments as a reasonable and preferable
interpretation of the rules, and I see no reason to differ. The
appellant also argues that the judge has failed to set a concrete
precedent; this is true, but it is not a reason to overturn.
Gratuitous Arguments by pikhq:
I agree to this judgement, and add the following arguments:
While a minimum time span between contest formation and contest end is not
defined for a contest to be fair, it seems that the game is most helped by
this being up to judicial decision on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, the
time span of less than a minute is not by any stretch of the imagination
Also, I would like to note that comex is far too clever to be allowed to
remain alive in Agora. :p