Zefram wrote:
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.
Relevant excerpts: (emphasis added)
(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,
*except as noted below*.
(-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so
at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue
Marks.
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.
Okay, fixed.
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.
Report updated accordingly, but the Black VC gain was covered by
the ratification.
