Dan Marsh on 7 May 2002 16:11:50 -0000

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

Re: [nbo] AMENDED Proposal Togas.1

>From: Tom Ogas <tom_ogas@yahoo.com>
>... damn, submitted the wrong text for ReElctions...  below is the ACTUAL 
>amended) proposal.  Since no one has voted on it yet, it should be ok to 
>fix it.

I'm not sure that it is... I voted FOR the proposal originally, and don't 
have a real problem with the new one (except see below), but I don't want to 
set a precedent of amending proposals extra-legally.

I therefore call for a Judicial Review.  I ask David Dickens to judge the 
veracity of the following statement:

Once a player has published a proposal according to the rules, he may not 
modify the proposal except as provided by law.

I should say that my preferred method for handling a poorly-written proposal 
(if such it be) is to vote AGAINST it.

>ReElection (11)
>11.1 After 30 days of service...
>11.2. In any ReElection...
>11.3 All candidates are presumed...
>11.2.2 If there is a tie...

Do you mean 11.4 for the last provision, or is 11.2.2 out of order with the 
other provisions?  And where's 11.2.1?


Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

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