Re: [s-b] [s-d] [Registrar] Roster and Report for Nweek 171

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes and no. The proposal will move the LOGAS into Rule 79, thereby simplifying
> the process of modifying the LOGAS. However, the proposal contained the LOGAS as
> it appeared at the time the proposal was written (and therefore, as it appears
> now, since it hasn't been modified). If the proposal passes, the Registrar will
> no longer be required to keep track of the LOGAS, as it will be codified into
> Rule 79, and therefore will be visible at all times, not just in the Registrar's
> nweekly report.
>
> Also, the proposal hasn't actually passed yet. The LOGAS is still tracked by the
> Registrar. Today is Thirnight (the Clock is wrong, I'll post a timeline to
> Business in a minute), the Clock in On, and the voting period doesn't
> effectively end until 11:59:59 UTC today.

So, the things that were on the LOGAS previously should still be on
it, as I suspected. Ergo, I object to the most recent registrar's
report on the grounds that it omits "Disobeying a request from Rule
700" from the LOGAS. (Added by me, using the proposal "Vacuity," on
June 27th at approximately 2100 GMT.)

Although I note that I messed up in creating that - should've
specified "the player named 'Rule 700'", because otherwise rule 2
makes it not apply to me, but rather to a hypothetical rule with that
number that somehow makes requests. I believe made the relevant
request - that people follow the rules, except for me - back when that
was still my name, so it would still be in effect... except that I
believe the LOGAS entry doesn't actually mean me the way I meant it
to. Oops.

 -
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business