Jamie Dallaire on Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:02:12 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Emergency


On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Jamie Dallaire
> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Speaking of which, maybe we should restrict PEP definition to active
> > players, or redefine reasonable effort to mean posting to the PF if it is
> up
> > and running.
>
> Alternatively: the rule says "notify other PEPs", not "notify all
> other PEPs". That's *wide* open for scamming and should be closed
> immediately if we use it to justify this emergency (and all prior
> ones), but it's how I read the rules as written. So I think we're good
> for now, but by God that one needs fixing.
>
> (I'll be participating in the non-Wooble emergency, assuming it is
> legit, but not in Wooble's emergency where I am not a PEP.)


And teucer saves the day!!!

By golly, he's right. We're good. 29 hours left for voting --- we need a
ballot.

It DOES need fixing, yes.

Had it said all other peps (to respond to the point in another post about
not having 4 of Charles around), we'd have to backtrack to late '06 (now at
least an identifiable point in time, thanks to Wooble's efforts) to check
who panicked/depanicked/deregistered and when, in order to see whether at
least 4 of the currently inactive-but-still-registereds were in a panic...
Yeah...

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