Format for e-mail
| CFJ: | 2689 |
| Interest Index: | 1 |
| Statement: | The most recent Scorekeepor's report was correct in reporting that BobTHJ revoked 3 points from ais523. |
| Caller: | Wooble |
| |
| Judge: | Walker |
| Judgement: | TRUE |
| |
| Appeal: | 2689a |
| Decision: | REMAND |
| |
| Judge: | Walker |
| Judgement: | FALSE |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | (none) |
History:
| Called by Wooble | 17 Sep 2009 17:14:42 GMT |
| Assigned to Walker | 18 Sep 2009 20:03:18 GMT |
| Judged TRUE by Walker | 20 Sep 2009 09:44:55 GMT |
| Appealed by coppro | 20 Sep 2009 17:09:05 GMT |
| Appealed by Walker | 20 Sep 2009 17:16:13 GMT |
| Appealed by Murphy | 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT |
| Appeal 2689a | 20 Sep 2009 17:20:24 GMT |
| REMANDED on Appeal | 24 Sep 2009 03:19:30 GMT |
| Remanded to Walker | 24 Sep 2009 03:19:30 GMT |
| Judged FALSE by Walker | 27 Sep 2009 09:03:06 GMT |
Caller's Arguments: | | (17 Sep 2009 17:14:42 GMT) |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 07:38, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
>> I CoE on the most recent Scorekeepor's report: the revocations shown
>> were most likely IMPOSSIBLE.
>>
> The last Scorekeepor report to self-ratify was Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:55.
> Point events since then (up to but not including Murphy's Cookie Jar
> awards that provoked this case):
>
> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:16 - SoA creates a Digit Ranch (7) in the
> possession of BobTHJ (-3 X-Points)
> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:40 - SoA creates a Digit Ranch (7) in the
> possession of ais523 (-3 X-Points)
>
> The AAA's threshold is 100. Since July 17 when I began automated point
> tracking the AAA has revoked only 45 X-points (including those revoked
> above). It is =A0doubtful that another 55 points were revoked in the
> period between June 29 and July 17, these revocations were successful.
> I deny this CoE.
The life of the contest began before June 29.
Gratuitous Arguments by BobTHJ: | | (17 Sep 2009 17:41:56 GMT) |
Yes, but thresholds were created on June 29. Points awarded prior to
that would not have counted toward a non-existant threshold. I submit
this as an argument in this case.
Judge Walker's Arguments: | | (20 Sep 2009 09:44:55 GMT) |
The question in this case is whether point awards and revocations
before June 29 count against a contest's point limit. (The current
award/revacation system was adopted on this date).
BobTHJ argues that point awards before this date do not count against
the then non-existent limits; Wooble's recent precedent in CFJs
2686-87 seems to disagree. I concur with Wooble's arguments* in both
of these cases, and as they remain unappealed, I judge CFJ 2689 TRUE.
* E discussed three possible interpretations of R2233 in eir
arguments, and settled on 3: A contest can reward a total number of
points equal to its
threshold limit over the life of the contest.
Judge Walker's Arguments: | | (27 Sep 2009 09:03:06 GMT) |
I judge FALSE, with the same arguments as last time.
