============================ Appeal 2203a ============================
Panelist: Sir Toby
Decision:
Panelist: omd
Decision:
Panelist: Murphy
Decision:
Panelist: woggle
Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE
Panelist: G.
Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE
Panelist: ais523
Decision: OVERRULE/FALSE
========================================================================
History:
Appeal initiated: 07 Oct 2008 20:59:46 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby (panelist): 09 Oct 2008 03:19:55 GMT
Assigned to omd (panelist): 09 Oct 2008 03:19:55 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 09 Oct 2008 03:19:55 GMT
Sir Toby recused (panelist): 23 Oct 2008 09:42:17 GMT
omd recused (panelist): 23 Oct 2008 10:04:58 GMT
Murphy recused (panelist): 23 Oct 2008 10:04:58 GMT
Assigned to woggle (panelist): 23 Oct 2008 10:04:58 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 23 Oct 2008 10:04:58 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist): 23 Oct 2008 10:04:58 GMT
G. moves to OVERRULE/FALSE: 27 Oct 2008 16:56:11 GMT
ais523 moves to OVERRULE/FALSE: 27 Oct 2008 17:35:38 GMT
woggle moves to OVERRULE/FALSE: 29 Oct 2008 19:30:46 GMT
Final decision (OVERRULE/FALSE): 29 Oct 2008 19:32:50 GMT
========================================================================
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
As mentioned in the Appellant's arguments, there is sufficient evidence
in the discussion forum around this case (including from disinterested
observers) that the tickets/votes in question were ambiguous, in that
they confused a reasonably significant number of informed observers.
It's important to note that the power-1 Rule 2127 enables conditional
votes by spelling out standards for considering a conditional to be
"clearly identified" by the power-3 R683. The fact that the R2127 "can
be reasonably determined" standards leads back to/modifies a stronger
R683 power-3 requirement for "clear" identification should lead us to a
relatively strict definition of "reasonable" in this case; e.g. to be
"clear", it should be "reasonably determinable" to *most* or *any*
observer (as opposed, for example, to non-voting action cases where the
recordkeeping Officer's fair understanding alone might be sufficiently
reasonable). This panel overrules to FALSE.
========================================================================