Re: [nbd] Discussion of Judgment

[Tom Ogas <tom_ogas@yahoo.com>]

Interesting,

Of course I still disagree with Dan.  :)  My feeling is that the rules should be
read and interpreted as a whole, and that if we took Dan's interpretation then
Law 2.1-2.4 have no practical meaning.

Perhaps one could argue that the rules are vague, but I think that argument only
stands up if one only reads bits and pieces of the rules.

A sidenote -- if Dan did an appeal, the rules are totally screwed up for them.  I
just realized this while reading it.  I think when Dave was changing the language
from Pass/No Pass to For/Against, he forgot to fix this Rule!

There is also the same language vaguery that Dan points to in our Proposal Making
process.  These ougta be fixed.  I think we can keep someone from exploiting it,
unless of course a sucessful appeal is made -- but I think that it's clear from
the voices of the masses (thus far) that a Conservative Faction exists on the
Nomic, and that rule bending is going to be minimized.

I'm tempted to submit a proposal to fix these problems, but I'll leave that to
somebody like Dave -- 'cause I think it's more his "fault".  :)

I'm going to submit something else.  A draft is forthcoming.

--Tom

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

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