============================ Appeal 2736a ============================
Appeal initiated: 24 Nov 2009 23:06:21 GMT
Assigned to Tiger (panelist): 28 Nov 2009 23:46:24 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist): 28 Nov 2009 23:46:24 GMT
Assigned to scshunt (panelist): 28 Nov 2009 23:46:24 GMT
Tiger moves to AFFIRM: 28 Nov 2009 23:52:41 GMT
scshunt moves to AFFIRM: 29 Nov 2009 00:05:26 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM: 01 Dec 2009 23:06:21 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM): 01 Dec 2009 23:06:21 GMT
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
I recommend AFFIRM. Per CFJ 1536, the judge not
knowing what an action meant is good evidence that it can't possibly
have been clear to everyone.
Panelist Tiger's Arguments:
I agree with c. and opine AFFIRM.
Panelist scshunt's Arguments:
I opine AFFIRM, and I would like a Concurring Opinion on this one.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
How's this for a simple concurring opinion:
Minor research into the term (which could have been performed by the
judge) suggests that "to zoop" something generally means to activate
an act-on-behalf contract with respect to a dependent action
(particularly with respect to standing instructions for getting
Support numbers for a particular class of action). With neither a
contract nor a dependent action referred to, ais523's assertion that
Agorans "have a basic idea of what it's meant to mean" is false.
This Panel really has no idea. The situation is so far removed from
the original that the term's relationship to a meaningful action has
broken down. Whether situations slightly closer to the original would
work - e.g. at least somehow involving act-on-behalf or somehow
involving dependent actions - must be dealt with on a case-by-case
The fact that the original judge, without further research, didn't
understand the meaning is an argument towards the term's growing
obscurity with time, but that is secondary as it is likely that many
Agorans still understand the original context of the term.
Error rating: coppro propose one?
Panelist G.'s Arguments:
[no opinion given]