============================== CFJ 2871 ==============================
There is a rule with ID number 2307
Called by ais523: 26 Sep 2010 22:35:12 GMT
Assigned to omd: 03 Oct 2010 17:53:39 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd: 03 Oct 2010 19:59:57 GMT
Appealed by Murphy: 04 Oct 2010 00:52:23 GMT
Appealed by omd: 04 Oct 2010 03:55:55 GMT
Appealed by Wooble: 04 Oct 2010 12:51:56 GMT
Appeal 2871a: 04 Oct 2010 12:51:56 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal: 17 Oct 2010 21:01:36 GMT
Assigned to omd: 17 Oct 2010 21:01:36 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 17 Oct 2010 22:51:23 GMT
I CFJ on the statement "There is a rule with ID number 2307", as it's
unclear to me from the text of rule 2307 whether it self-repeals upon
the resolution of the decision, or Taral actually updating the decision.
the relevant paragraph of 2307:
When the Agoran decision is resolved, if a Website Submission
was selected as the outcome, then its author is awarded two
Leadership Tokens and Taral SHOULD update http://agoranomic.org/
to reflect the winning Website Submission. Regardless of the
outcome, this rule then repeals itself.
Judge omd's Arguments:
Since the word "then" comes in a clause that applies "regardless of
the outcome", it cannot be interpreted to refer to an action (Taral
updating http://agoranomic.org/) that is only mentioned in the context
of one sort of outcome; instead, it must refer to "when the Agoran
decision is resolved". I suppose it might be argued that "its author
is awarded two Leadership Tokens and Taral SHOULD..." is part of a
process (which is null if a Website Submission was not selected as the
outcome), and "then" refers to the end of the process, but under that
interpretation, the rule would be assuming that Taral would indeed
update the website, which doesn't make sense when eir requirement to
do so is just a SHOULD.
Appellant Murphy's Arguments:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. I request that
the panel judge OVERRULE/FALSE without prejudice; omd's arguments
are reasonable, but eir judgement does not match them, presumably
due to a thinko.
Appellant omd's Arguments:
I support, oops.