Murphy wrote: > I may change my mind if additional counterarguments specific to this > issue are brought to my attention.
For the attention of Murphy: Although many of the arguemnts were expressed in terms of whether the equation could be made a contract or not, many of them implied the contestmastership question as well. For instance, one major argument that root and I were making is typified in the message archived at <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-May/014799.html> (there may be better examples), talking about how a contest is a possible agreement that the parties could make; that agreement would also involve installing root as contestmaster (because the way to make that agreement would have been by rule 2136), although the point was not stressed until now. So the arguments are relevant to whether root is contestmaster. Wooble's judgement reads {{{ I rule FALSE. Rule 2136 regulates how a player can become the contestmaster of a contest, and root used none of the mechanisms provided in that rule to do so. }}} The judgement fails to address the argument that rule 2169 is capable of creating a contest, with root as contestmaster because rule 2136 would have allowed em to create a contest with em as contestmaster, without input from the other players. This argument is clearly relevant to the case, and yet Wooble did not even mention it, not to rebut it, or to explain how it didn't apply (and as I stated earlier, it rebuts Wooble's argument exactly, and therefore should itself be rebutted before a judgement of FALSE can be made). Failure to address the arguments is the reason root gave for calling the appeal in the first place. The precedent of CFJ 1651a (as comex mentioned in eir appeal) is that when a judgement illustrates a lack of understanding of the issues, it should be reassigned; this judgement instead illustrates a lack of consideration for the arguments, but is a similar problem. If the opposing arguments are irrelevant, I would expect a well-reasoned judgement to explain why they are irrelevant. Therefore, I still maintain that REASSIGN is the most appropriate judgement. -- ais523 sent to a-d deliberately
<<winmail.dat>>
