Index ← 1798 CFJ 1799a 1799 → text
============================  Appeal 1799a  ============================

Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               AFFIRM



Appeal initiated:                       29 Nov 2007 01:47:01 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              29 Nov 2007 01:51:18 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          29 Nov 2007 01:51:18 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            29 Nov 2007 01:51:18 GMT
Murphy moves to AFFIRM:                 03 Dec 2007 01:16:26 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM:                     03 Dec 2007 02:51:17 GMT
root moves to AFFIRM:                   05 Dec 2007 17:47:07 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM):                05 Dec 2007 17:47:07 GMT


Panelist root's Arguments:

Murphy wrote in support of FALSE:

While "to nkep" fits the grammatical template of an action, it is not
actually an action, because "nkep" is a nonsense word.

root accepted this argument.

Goethe wrote in support of UNDETERMINED:

The various gratuitous arguments
center around whether we can infer noun vs. verb phrases in the nonsense
statement.  But trivially, the rules distinguish "actions" from "inactions"
(eg. R101viii).  The nonsense phrase could easily mean to "not act" as well
as to act, and keep the same grammar.  Thus this phrase could be an inaction
rather than an action.  This argument shows that even if we accept that it's
a verb phrase (which we don't necessarily accept), it is UNDETERMINED if it is
about an action.

Murphy noted that it is R101vii, not R101viii, and that the
distinction is not universal (e.g. R1504c), but that e would accept
this argument with those changes.

root argued that the nonsense phrase means neither "to act" nor "to
not act", supporting a judgement of FALSE.

root argued that a finding of UNDETERMINED is not in the best
interests of the game, causing a split in the gamestate.

Goethe argued that we don't have enough information to know what the
nonsense phrase means, and that it could be a contract action in a
private contract, which is permissible or not permissible by the
contract (and thus answerable to in Agoran courts).

Goethe argued that a gamestate split is unfortunate but not a factor
for consideration.

root responded that anything could be defined in a private contract,
so by Goethe's argument, all hypothetical cases should be judged

Goethe offered a compromise:

nkep is clearly not understandable to most Agorans,
and thus the burden falls onto the users of the term to show it is
an action.  If they can provide evidence in four days that nkep is an
action (e.g. a copy of a contract, with reasonably acceptable evidence
dated to before the CFJ in question), we can find otherwise, else we'll
find FALSE.  We can't Order this (no Orders anymore) but we can post the

root and Murphy accepted the compromise, with a timing of four days
from Murphy's acceptance (28 Nov 2007 22:43:21 GMT).

More than four days later, at 3 Dec 2007 07:32:51 GMT, BobTHJ produced
a part of the Fookiemyartug contract providing a definition for nkep.

comex indicated that e had no knowledge of such a contract at the time
e called CFJ 1799.

BobTHJ subsequently produced the full Fookiemyartug contract,
indicating that the nkep provision had been established after CFJ 1799
was called but applied retroactively to the formation of the contract.

However, BobTHJ's evidence did not meet the panel's standard of
timeliness.  Additionally, Goethe indicated, with root in agreement,
that this did not constitute reasonably acceptable evidence that a
meaning had been established prior to the initiation of CFJ 1799.