============================== CFJ 2698 ==============================
If a player had a reasonable opportunity to review a change, then
that player had notice of the change.
Called by ais523: 19 Sep 2009 20:07:00 GMT
Assigned to Walker: 23 Sep 2009 22:29:23 GMT
Walker recused: 29 Sep 2009 18:17:41 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra: 03 Oct 2009 19:54:13 GMT
Pavitra recused: 03 Oct 2009 19:55:35 GMT
Assigned to omd: 03 Oct 2009 19:56:57 GMT
omd recused: 12 Oct 2009 23:41:14 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 13 Oct 2009 00:04:55 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 25 Oct 2009 17:15:47 GMT
[see CFJ 2697]
This should also be a trivial TRUE; I can't see any way to
twist the English language sufficiently that it comes out false.
Putting these two statements together, intending to perform a change is
notice of the change. Note that the contract didn't say "with 4 days
notice that I intend to perform the change using this mechanism"; just
"with 4 days notice".
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The judge should consider whether explicitly and clearly specifying a
method of change in the intent, and then attempting to use a different
and "unreviewed" actual method of change, is misleading enough to
interfere with the review process. For example, if you are explicitly
told at the outset that you have seven days to review it (and the seven
days is in keeping with the rules) so you decide to look at it later,
but then you are only given four, did that make the opportunity
unreasonable? If you are told that its up for a vote, and you count
people voting against, but then the votes are ignored by a short-
circuited unannounced process, could you have adequately reviewed so
as to consider your response?
Further, the judge should consider whether "intend" in the general
natural language sense is the same as posting a R1728 dependent-action
intention (the judgement in CFJ 2692 implies that a R1728 intent posting
is not necessarily a "natural" posting of intent).
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Is this for 2696 or 2698 or both? I'm throwing it in as gratuitous
> arguments (already have done for Pavitra and 2706).
That was 2696; I didn't notice the linked case 2698. For the record I
would have judged trivially TRUE, with the caveat that ais523's
attempted conclusion ("intending, then waiting 4 days, gives a
reasonable opportunity; a reasonable opportunity constitutes notice;
therefore, intending constitutes notice") is faulty for two reasons.
First, Rule 101 (iv) refers to an amendment, not an intent to amend.
Just as burying an intent inside a long report can prevent it from
being counted as valid notice, so can burying it inside a host of
other intents. There was only one amendment, and everyone had plenty
of opportunity to review its implications-- amended contract is turned
into a mousetrap-- but there were many intents, and it might be
unreasonable to expect everyone to review every possible way the
intent could go through. After all, if everyone had notice of the
intent to amend Cookie Jar, wouldn't they have left the contract?...
Second, "with notice", with the implicit nod to dependent actions
(even before With Notice was introduced) probably requires a more
formal process than ordinary-language notice. After all, if all
that's required is ordinary-language notice of ordinary-language
intent, simply (for example) protoing the change to the discussion
forum would be enough to trap anyone the caller could prove read it,
for who posts a proto of a change they don't intend to implement?
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I accept the caller's arguments, but also c.'s gratuitous arguments;
in particular, ais523's "I intend to amend via various objection-based
methods" did not necessarily offer a reasonable opportunity to review
the notice-based change that e actually had in mind.