RE: [nbo] Proposal Marsh.3

["Dickens, David" <David.Dickens@pepperdine.edu>]

I believe it passed.  I would have liked a point for voting for it, but
since I support it, and since nobody voted against it.  I'm cool with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Marsh [mailto:dmarsh3000@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:04 AM
To: notbob-official@nomic.net
Subject: Re: [nbo] Proposal Marsh.3


Did Marsh.3 just slip under everyone's radar?  I believe this passed, by the

logic I used in my original scam.  Too bad I didn't add something scammy to 
it.

>From: "Dan Marsh" <dmarsh3000@hotmail.com>
>Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:18:14 -0400
>
>Proposal Marsh.3:
>----
>Amend Section 6 of Law 4 (JudicialRulings) to read as follows:
>
>(a) A player accepting a Nomination as Judge shall reply in not less 
>than two, nor more than five, days, from his acceptance to publish a 
>Ruling to all Players.
>(d) A Judicial Ruling must include an answer of True, False, or Null 
>and
>may
>include any other materials the Judge believes relevant to the Ruling but
>these shall not be considered legally material.
>----

_________________________________________________________________
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 -------]

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