============================== CFJ 2425 ==============================
Murphy's recent attempt to cause Rule 2223 to amend itself to read
'This rule intentionally left blank' failed because it attempted to
claim indirect authority from the non-existent Rule 6130.
Called by ais523: 16 Mar 2009 16:39:09 GMT
Assigned to ehird: 23 Mar 2009 16:02:28 GMT
Judged FALSE by ehird: 23 Mar 2009 16:23:10 GMT
Appealed by G.: 24 Mar 2009 21:54:18 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 24 Mar 2009 23:24:20 GMT
Appealed by Taral: 24 Mar 2009 23:59:46 GMT
Appeal 2425a: 24 Mar 2009 23:59:46 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 04 Apr 2009 16:16:22 GMT
Assigned to ehird: 04 Apr 2009 16:16:22 GMT
Judged FALSE by ehird: 07 Apr 2009 22:57:23 GMT
Appealed by root: 07 Apr 2009 23:16:07 GMT
Appealed by woggle: 07 Apr 2009 23:36:51 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 07 Apr 2009 23:44:41 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli: 07 Apr 2009 23:47:01 GMT
Appeal 2425b: 07 Apr 2009 23:47:01 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 12 Apr 2009 19:27:28 GMT
Assigned to ehird: 12 Apr 2009 19:27:28 GMT
ehird recused: 26 Apr 2009 20:36:51 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 26 Apr 2009 20:38:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by Yally: 26 Apr 2009 22:17:47 GMT
Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
that change to be void and without effect.
Judge ehird's Arguments:
FALSE; it failed because of ambiguity (see above). If it didn't fail
because of ambiguity this might be TRUE.
Appellant G.'s Arguments:
)This requires that we follow the logic of CFJ 2424).
Judge ehird's Arguments:
FALSE, again, it failed because of the above.
Appellant root's Arguments:
I intend to appeal these with 2 support; I recommend REASSIGN since
ehird seems intent on ignoring the appeal panel's instructions.
Appellant woggle's Arguments:
For the record, I note (as a member of the appeals panel who recommended
REMAND) that I do not mind ehird judging to the same outcome; however, I
would've appreciated eir amending eir arguments to, for example,
reference rules or explain what the R105 "specification of a rule
Appellant Murphy's Arguments:
I support both of these. The arguments so far can be summarized thusly:
ais523> In the situation "I award to ", the method
matters because different limits are used up.
others> That only covers situations that have substantively different
side effects based on the method. The situation actually at
hand does not. Things break badly if one interprets such
situations as requiring specification anyway.
ehird> Preciseness is important.
ehird's arguments do not address the specific claims made and rebutted
by anyone else. That is why they are less reasonable.
Appellant Machiavelli's Arguments:
I support both of these, as ehird did not make a better judgement or
submit new arguments.
Judge Yally's Arguments:
I may be misinterpreting the statement, but in my mind it seems to be saying
that making a failing attempt within an announcement causes the entire
announcement to fail. This should not be. Just because some announcement
attempts to gain authority from an invalid source, does not inherently cause
it to fail. The rest of the announcement should be judged on its own merits.
Therefore, I opine FALSE.