Format for e-mail
| Appeal in the matter of: |
CFJ 2736 |
| |
| Panelist: | Tiger |
| Decision: | AFFIRM |
| |
| Panelist: | G. |
| Decision: | AFFIRM |
| |
| Panelist: | coppro |
| Decision: | AFFIRM |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | ais523, Wooble |
History:
| 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 coppro (panelist) | 28 Nov 2009 23:46:24 GMT |
| Tiger moves to AFFIRM | 28 Nov 2009 23:52:41 GMT |
| coppro moves to AFFIRM | 29 Nov 2009 00:05:26 GMT |
| G. moves to AFFIRM | 1 Dec 2009 23:06:21 GMT |
| Final decision (AFFIRM) | 1 Dec 2009 23:06:21 GMT |
Appellant Murphy's Arguments: | | (24 Nov 2009 22:47:17 GMT) |
I interpret this as a judgement. I intend (with 2 support) to
appeal it, requesting REASSIGN because the judge made no attempt
to address the evidence giving possible definitions of "zooping".
Appellant ais523's Arguments: | | (24 Nov 2009 23:04:06 GMT) |
If possible, I support. The ambiguity as to what exactly zooping means
is the whole point of the CFJ.
Gratuitous Arguments by comex: | | (24 Nov 2009 23:25:39 GMT) |
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: | | (28 Nov 2009 23:52:41 GMT) |
I agree with c. and opine AFFIRM.
Panelist coppro's Arguments: | | (29 Nov 2009 00:05:26 GMT) |
I opine AFFIRM, and I would like a Concurring Opinion on this one.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.: | | (29 Nov 2009 07:03:04 GMT) |
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
basis.
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: | | (1 Dec 2009 23:06:21 GMT) |
[no opinion given]
