ais523 wrote:
> 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.
I've already taken a stance against such arguments in my judgement of
CFJ 1936.
> 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.
Wooble addressed the argument explicitly raised by the caller. These
other arguments were not explicitly labeled as arguments pertaining to
CFJ 1937 specifically (until after Wooble judged); while it would have
been nice if Wooble had addressed them explicitly anyway, it certainly
didn't deserve comex tagging it with the same "incoherent" brush as the
original judgement of CFJ 1651.
I continue to maintain that REMAND is most appropriate at this time. If
we REMAND, and Wooble still fails to address the arguments that have now
been explicitly tagged to the case, then I would support a second appeal
and REASSIGN.
