On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Clinching evidence: >> >> The player did not deregister. The registrar deregistered the player. > > Wasn't this the source of BobTHJs contract-to-deregister scam (e > contracted to deregister for a fee, had the Registrar do so via > Writ of FAGE, then re-registered immediately as e hadn't triggered > the 30-day wait? > > And didn't we fix some aspect of cantus cygnus to plug that hole? > Could've sworn we voted on a fix but the rule sure doesn't look like > it now.
P5603 would have fixed it, but it was voted down. In BobTHJ's example, the courts found that the indirect deregistration did not meet the terms of the contract, and so it probably wasn't seen as a high priority. -root
