It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify without any claim of error, then the information therein will be retroactively accurate... I think?
> On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll > probably have a verdict in the next day or two. > > -The Arbitor > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the investigation >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for no >> other purpose. >> >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the >>> gamestate of either of them is. >>>> >>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is >>> recordkeepor have their default value.} >>>> >>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have >>> their default value.} >>> >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be >>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.) >>> >> -- >> D. Margaux
