JUDGEMENT 15 (Michael Norrish) Tue, 24 Aug 93, 16:00 PDT

STATEMENT:
Proposal 383 was malformed and should not have been allowed to have
been voted on, therefore it should not have been allowed to repeal
202.

JUSTIFICATION:
1) The title and the body of the proposal contradict one another.
2) Proposals 302 and 308 do not amend 202 (they amend 211).

JUDGE:
David Cogen <cogen@ll.mit.edu>

JUDGEMENT (David Cogen) Wed, 25 Aug 93

TRUE

So, my decision, as judge is: "CORRECT".

Proposal 383 was, unfortunately, worthless as a proposal. It was completely
inconsistent.

Proposal 383 should be discarded. All votes and resulting score changes must be
reversed.

{ Note that this Judgement was deemed to have no effect as the use of
the word "should" was not legally binding. Judgement 16 however was so
explicit as to defuse the furore caused by the passage of Proposal
383. }