============================== CFJ 2805 ==============================
Tiger created a Fragment in the above-quoted message.
Called by ais523: 11 Jun 2010 16:21:54 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 13 Jun 2010 20:37:22 GMT
Judged TRUE by scshunt: 13 Jun 2010 21:41:27 GMT
Appealed by G.: 15 Jun 2010 15:34:33 GMT
Appealed by omd: 15 Jun 2010 16:56:27 GMT
Appealed by ais523: 15 Jun 2010 17:04:51 GMT
Appeal 2805a: 15 Jun 2010 17:20:30 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 28 Jun 2010 19:02:40 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 28 Jun 2010 19:02:40 GMT
scshunt recused: 14 Jul 2010 22:17:00 GMT
Assigned to Wooble: 14 Jul 2010 22:19:11 GMT
Wooble recused: 29 Jul 2010 02:13:50 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 29 Jul 2010 02:15:10 GMT
Judged TRUE by Yally: 29 Jul 2010 02:26:50 GMT
It's unclear whether the alleged Fragment was delimited by
[[[ and ]]] (which are plausible delimiters to use), or whether they are
part of the Fragment itself (also plausible, due to the
punctuation-heavy nature of the Fragment). Therefore, this may have
failed due to ambiguity. (By the way, do we actually have a rule that
allows actions to fail due to ambiguity?)
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:10 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> I create a Fragment with the following text:
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
As granulator it was pretty clear to me that the actual
fragment was @->---@ due to line breaks and the common use of [[]]
to denote framing. -G.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Me too. Was anyone actually confused about the intended
content of the fragment?
Gratuitous Arguments by Tiger:
If one kept track of the rest of the game at the time, I
immediately before (or maybe after) sent a "proto of a D-proposal",
thus intended to include fragments, including that fragment with
[[]] counting as delimiters. Of course this might not be required,
as it was a proto to a-d, but still.
Judge scshunt's Arguments:
Tiger's message clearly and unambiguously specifying that he was
submitting a fragment with "the following text", immediately followed by
three lines of text. Per Rules 217 and 478, he did submit a Fragment
containing those three lines of text; tradition is irrelevant given the
explicitness of the action. TRUE.
Appellant G.'s Arguments:
I intend to appeal this ruling with 2 support. Many people have been
equally explicit about submitting "the following proposal" which is also
a "body of text" (R106) and Promotors (including the current judge) have
not included the delimiters as part of the "text". This ruling
effectively removes the ability to us plain and obvious delimiters in
all "text" submissions, which includes just about everything. This is
not for the good of the game. -G.
Appellant ais523's Arguments:
I also support. Appealing a judgement just because you don't like its
implications is a bad idea, but I'm not certain that this judgement
covers the bases thoroughly enough to set a precedent that people will
follow, nor to convince me it's correct.
Judge Yally's Arguments:
I agree that Tiger's action was suitably unambigous. [[[ ]]] and similar
indicators have traditionally represented a framing of text. Were Tiger to
want those characters to be a part of the fragment, he should have made it
clear. As he did not, it appears (and everyone seems to agree) that his
fragment unambiguously did not contain those characters. TRUE.