Dan Marsh on 2 May 2002 19:30:16 -0000

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

[nbo] Vote and Proposal from Jillian; Judgment

>From: "Dickens, David" <David.Dickens@pepperdine.edu>
>Since I picked on Dan Marsh before... I'll let him adjudicate.
>Dan if you would be so kind as to offer judgment on the following (t,f,n):
>Jill's Proposal 2 should be tabled until her first Proposal either
>passes or fails and Jill's Proposal 3 should be tabled until her
>second Proposal either passes or fails.
>See Tom Ogas' ruling notes from our first judgment and Law 1.3 "Proposal

I Judge this statement TRUE; even if 1.3 wasn't there Tom's ruling on my 
scam (on which more anon at NBD) sets a further precedent against two 
proposals being active from the same player at the same time.  The way I 
interpret the results of this judgment is that Sorensen.2 & .3 are 
considered not to have been made until the vote on S.1 is complete; she must 
resubmit them later (as I must resubmit Marsh.2).

However, I think that this didn't need to be submitted for Judgment; we 
could have pointed out 1.3 and Tom's ruling and submitted this for Judgment 
only if her response was something other than "Oh, sorry, my bad."  (NOW who 
has to read the rules? :-)


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

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