Ed Murphy wrote: >> 02 Dec 2007 23:39:06 1818 pikhq +1b call for judgement > >This didn't happen, due to 2176 (+b)'s "except as noted below" clause.
There is no note below about not gaining blue marks. There's a note about *losing* blue marks when making excess calls for judgement, but nothing that cancels the positive award. >> 05 Dec 2007 16:15:56 1812 BobTHJ -1B judgement overturned >> 05 Dec 2007 17:47:07 1805 pikhq -1B judgement overturned > >Either I missed these, or they had no VCs to lose. I'm not tracking VC holdings, so it's possible that I'll specify a "-1B" when someone has no blue VCs. In that case the "-1B" would be converted by R2126 into a party VC loss. >> 16 Dec 2007 18:30:45 1811 comex +1B judge on time > >This wasn't on time. I reckon it was. Parties were notified on 4 December; parties did not close the pre-trial phase, so trial began on 11 December; time limit for judging expired on 18 December; comex judged on 16 December with two days left. >I also had this: > >Tue 4 Dec 20:01:00 BobTHJ +1K CFJ 1812 (sentencing) (successful, > CFJs 1808 - 1809) I reckon that BobTHJ did not pass sentence there because at least one of the items e listed as prescribed words was not a word. I said so at the time. CFJs 1808-1809 are irrelevant: they concern the case where nothing is explicitly specified for the set of prescribed words, which is what happened in CFJ 1783. In CFJ 1812 BobTHJ explicitly specified a set, but an invalid one. -zefram
