Dan Marsh on 2 May 2002 20:00:55 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[nbd] Discussion of Judgment

I think I'd like to find some way of instituting arguments from "attorneys" 
in judicial proceedings; I think both David and Tom missed the vagary in the 
Law that made my scam legal.

2.5: "A Proposal is Ratified, if it receives the necessary number of For 
Votes as indicated by the RuleSet within the time allowed to by the RuleSet; 

My feeling is that "the necessary number of FOR votes" is not explicitly 
defined.  However, a proposal is ratified if it receives more for votes than 
against.  At 1-0, this has happened; in my mind "the necessary number of FOR 
votes" has been reached.  Both David and Tom focussed on "within the time 
allowed," but even here I feel they missed.  I don't think that "within the 
time allotted" means that all of the time must elapse.  A return policy that 
allows you to return something "within 14 days" does not mean that returns 
are only accepted at 11:59PM on day 14, but at any time during the 14 days.  
So: "the necessary number of For Votes" have been received "within the time 
allowed," by my reasoning, and Marsh.1 (and Marsh.2) should have passed.

However, judgment has been returned, even if I think if has been returned in 
error.  This is essentially why I think that a case should be allowed to be 
made by each side, before a ruling is returned.  I'll give some thought to 
how to incorporate this into a rule (it may be as simple as setting up a 
waiting period before judgment can be returned).  I'll also consider whether 
to appeal this judgment.


Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 

[-- brought to you by notbob-discuss@nomic.net ---]
[- http://ddickens.pepperdine.edu/nomic/ for now -]
[----- please, remember to trim the quotes -------]