Format for e-mail
| Appeal in the matter of: |
CFJ 2739 |
| |
| Panelist: | Yally |
| Decision: | AFFIRM |
| |
| Panelist: | Walker |
| Decision: | AFFIRM |
| |
| Panelist: | comex |
| Decision: | AFFIRM |
| |
| Currently Eligible: | coppro, Murphy, Wooble |
History:
| Appeal initiated | 7 Dec 2009 17:17:50 GMT |
| Assigned to Yally (panelist) | 14 Dec 2009 17:39:13 GMT |
| Assigned to Walker (panelist) | 14 Dec 2009 17:39:13 GMT |
| Assigned to comex (panelist) | 14 Dec 2009 17:39:13 GMT |
| comex moves to AFFIRM | 14 Dec 2009 20:09:38 GMT |
| Walker moves to AFFIRM | 14 Dec 2009 21:09:07 GMT |
| Yally moves to AFFIRM | 14 Dec 2009 23:00:55 GMT |
| Final decision (AFFIRM) | 14 Dec 2009 23:00:55 GMT |
Appellant coppro's Arguments: | | (7 Dec 2009 01:30:28 GMT) |
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: | | (7 Dec 2009 03:16:59 GMT) |
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Sean Hunt <rideau3@gmail.com> 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: | | (7 Dec 2009 16:58:46 GMT) |
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
applied.
Panelist Walker's Arguments: | | (14 Dec 2009 21:09:07 GMT) |
Any suggestions for a concurring opinion?
