============================== CFJ 2739 ==============================
Taral has earned a white ribbon.
Called by G.: 24 Nov 2009 16:19:26 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 28 Nov 2009 23:51:12 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 02 Dec 2009 21:46:31 GMT
Appealed by scshunt: 07 Dec 2009 01:30:28 GMT
Appealed by Taral: 07 Dec 2009 03:16:59 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 07 Dec 2009 16:58:46 GMT
Appeal 2739a: 07 Dec 2009 17:17:50 GMT
AFFIRMED on Appeal: 14 Dec 2009 23:00:55 GMT
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> When a first-class person
> has been a player continuously for at least three months,
> was never a player before that period, and names another
> player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this
> fashion before), the named player earns a White Ribbon.
> This seems to grandfather in everyone who was a player before the
> rule came to have this form.
> To be precise:
> I was (had been) a player from Feb 2001-May 2001.
> I was never a player before that period.
> I have never named a mentor.
> I name Taral as my Mentor.
>From Rule 2199/8:
(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first
time, e earns a White Ribbon. When a first-class person
has been a player continuously for at least three months,
was never a player before that period, and names another
player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this
fashion before), the named player earns a White Ribbon.
Gratuitous Arguments by Wooble:
"has been" is the present perfect progressive
tense, and thus requires that the three month registration period in
question be the player's current registration, and that e had no
registration before that.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I judge CFJ 2739 FALSE. "has been" is the present perfect progressive
tense; all the top few websites that I checked when doing a Google
search for this say that (if used with a duration, like it is in this
case) the meaning is of a condition that was continuously true for the
stated time period up until now, and is still true now. So "a
first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three
months" means "continuously during a time period of at least three
months ending now, a first-class person was a player". Although this
condition applies to Taral, it only applies for eir most recent
registration, not for any registration before that; and so, the only
time period which meets that condition fails the "was never a player
before that period" test. (In other words, Wooble's gratuitous arguments
are correct here.) Compare "a first-class person was registered for
three months", the present perfect (non-progressive) tense, which would
have the meaning that would make this CFJ true.
Appellant scshunt's Arguments:
I intend, with two support, to appeal this judgment. While ais523's
logic is sound, eir arguments apply it to Taral, not to G.. I recommend
a judgment of AFFIRM with a concurring opinion.
Appellant Taral's Arguments:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The judgment refers to you, but the rule refers to the person naming eir
> mentor (G.) and not the player being named (you).
Oh. I support then. :)
Appellant Murphy's Arguments:
I support, and suggest the following as the concurring opinion:
Judge ais523's argument should have been applied to G. (the player
attempting to name a mentor) rather than Taral (the player e
attempted to name as a mentor), as the former is the subject of the
continuous-registration requirement. Eir argument is otherwise
sound, and would have led to the same verdict with this correction