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

[Gabriel Vistica <gvistica@xxxxxxxxx>]

Also, if Proposal 2036 passes, the LOGAS will again contain only those two 
things.




----- Original Message ----
> From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: spoon-business <spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Fri, July 9, 2010 10:02:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d]  [Registrar] Roster and Report for Nweek 171
> 
> 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
> 


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