Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Old censer found down back of sofa, incense reintroduced to economy
I agree that this current report implies (with a labelled column containing blanks) that everyone except you has 0. That's why I CoE'd this report. Because, see Rule 2379: for a report to imply anything about incense, it would need to have a labelled blank section (labeled as "incense ownership" or similar, or be a statement that actually says "no one has any incense"). When we thought incense was repealed, the entire column was missing from the Treasuror's Report, and there was nothing that said "incense". So by R2379, those reports have no information whatsoever that could be ratified about incense (if you don't label the blank list, you're not reporting it and it doesn't self-ratify). So the true incense values that have in fact self-ratified are from the last time the column was included (non-zero values for almost everyone). On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, D Margaux wrote: > Under the theory advanced below, I think there is no error in the current > Treasuror Weekly Report. The current Report does not expressly say that > anyone has "0" incense; it simply leaves that field blank. And under the > theory advanced below, this blank field does not necessarily imply "0". > > Another theory would be that the blank field implicitly states that > everyone else has the default amount of incense, i.e., 0. In that > interpretation, the current Report is also correct, because then prior > Reports have already self-ratified everyone else's incense into oblivion. > > So, under either theory, it seems to me that there is no error in the > current Report. As a result, one way to handle this mess is to deny the > CoE for lack of any error in the Report, and then use the first CFJ below > to determine which of the two theories is correct (if any). > > DM > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:22 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I > > initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was at > > its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a > > recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of > > assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's report - > > as a self-ratifying document. > > > > An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that > > CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_, without > > blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might potentially > > mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror report (and > > possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts, because the way we > > usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous: it might be a CoE > > against any one of the self-ratifying documents that make up the Treasuror > > report. > > > > What a headache. > > > > I CFJ: "A player other than D. Margaux owns at least 1 incense." > > I CFJ: "The Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, > > is doubted." > > > > If G.'s claim of error is in fact a doubt, then in response to it, I cite > > the first above CFJ (which I believe relieves me of the obligation to > > either revise the report or deny the CoE in a timely fashion). > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed > > > and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported, > > > unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0. > > > Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all > > > liquid currencies" or the like. > > > > > > Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the > > > Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted > > > as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no > > > implication that the missing data were self-ratified to 0. > > > > > > (This is just a guess idk, I'm not that bothered but let's not lose all > > > our useless stuff if we still got it :P ). > > > > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > UNREFINABLE CURRENCIES > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > Rules summary: > > > > > > > > - Coins are obtained every month at Payday and used to buy zombies > > and > > > > Land Units at auctions. > > > > > > > > - Stones are obtained from Mines and used to build, upgrade and > > maintain > > > > most Production Facilities. > > > > > > > > - Apples are obtained from Orchards and used to move around the map > > and > > > > change the colour of Land Units. > > > > > > > > - Corn is obtained from Farms and used for the same actions as > > Apples, > > > > but at a cheaper rate. > > > > > > > > - Incense is useless and exists only due to a ruleset bug. > > > > > > > > ++--++--+--+--++---+ > > > > ||Coins
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Old censer found down back of sofa, incense reintroduced to economy
Under the theory advanced below, I think there is no error in the current Treasuror Weekly Report. The current Report does not expressly say that anyone has "0" incense; it simply leaves that field blank. And under the theory advanced below, this blank field does not necessarily imply "0". Another theory would be that the blank field implicitly states that everyone else has the default amount of incense, i.e., 0. In that interpretation, the current Report is also correct, because then prior Reports have already self-ratified everyone else's incense into oblivion. So, under either theory, it seems to me that there is no error in the current Report. As a result, one way to handle this mess is to deny the CoE for lack of any error in the Report, and then use the first CFJ below to determine which of the two theories is correct (if any). DM On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:22 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I > initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was at > its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a > recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of > assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's report - > as a self-ratifying document. > > An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that > CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_, without > blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might potentially > mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror report (and > possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts, because the way we > usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous: it might be a CoE > against any one of the self-ratifying documents that make up the Treasuror > report. > > What a headache. > > I CFJ: "A player other than D. Margaux owns at least 1 incense." > I CFJ: "The Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, > is doubted." > > If G.'s claim of error is in fact a doubt, then in response to it, I cite > the first above CFJ (which I believe relieves me of the obligation to > either revise the report or deny the CoE in a timely fashion). > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed > > and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported, > > unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0. > > Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all > > liquid currencies" or the like. > > > > Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the > > Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted > > as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no > > implication that the missing data were self-ratified to 0. > > > > (This is just a guess idk, I'm not that bothered but let's not lose all > > our useless stuff if we still got it :P ). > > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > UNREFINABLE CURRENCIES > > > > > > === > > > > > > Rules summary: > > > > > > - Coins are obtained every month at Payday and used to buy zombies > and > > > Land Units at auctions. > > > > > > - Stones are obtained from Mines and used to build, upgrade and > maintain > > > most Production Facilities. > > > > > > - Apples are obtained from Orchards and used to move around the map > and > > > change the colour of Land Units. > > > > > > - Corn is obtained from Farms and used for the same actions as > Apples, > > > but at a cheaper rate. > > > > > > - Incense is useless and exists only due to a ruleset bug. > > > > > > ++--++--+--+--++---+ > > > ||Coins ||Stones|Apples| Corn ||Incense| > > > > > > > > > > > > +--++--++--+--+--++---+ > > > |ATMunn || 94 || 6 | 42 | 3 || > > > |Aris || 132 || 5 | 40 | 12 || > > > |Corona || 153 || 64 | 129 | 49 || > > > |CuddleBeam|| 70 || 11 | 28 | 9 ++---+ > > > |D. Margaux|| 10 || 5 | 10 | 0 || 5 | > > > |G. || 435 || 0 | 0 | 0 ++---+ > > > |Murphy || 96 || 114 | 174 | 31 || > > > |omd || 30 || 0 | 10 | 2 || > > > |PSS || 43 || 5 | 25 | 1 || > > > |Trigon || 62 || 2 | 19 | 18 || > > > |twg || 396 || 35 | 121 | 4 || > > > |V.J. Rada || 115 || 10 | 80 | 3 || > > > +--++--++--+--+--++ > > > |Gaelan || 67 || 14 | 38 | 2 || > > > |Kenyon || 0 || 0 | 0 | 0 || > > > |nichdel || 30 || 0 | 15 | 0 || > > > |o || 20 || 0 | 10 | 0 || > > > |Ouri || 10 || 0 | 5 | 0 || > > > |pokes || 20 || 0 | 10 | 0 || > > > |Quazie || 20 || 0 | 10 | 0 || > > > |Telnaior || 10 || 0 | 5 | 0 || > > > |天火狐 || 10 || 0 | 5 | 0 || > > > +--++--++--+--+--++ > > > |Agora || 1012 || - | - | - || > > >
Re: DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
Taking G.'s suggestion, I've added some more material to the draft rule that makes explicit the material that should be tracked in the Referee weekly report. Much of this seems to have been tracked in the past, even though it's not part of the current rule. Comments welcome. / Title: Referee Weekly Report Contents AI: 1.0 Author: D. Margaux Amend Rule 2555 to add the following as a new paragraph: "The Referee's Weekly Report SHALL include the following: 1. A list of each impure person and the number of blots possessed by each. 2. A list identifying every action taken since the last Weekly Report or within the current Weekly Report that created (or destroyed) one or more blots, including listing the following information: the name of the person in whose possession the blot(s) were created (or destroyed), the number of blots that were created (or destroyed), the date on which those blot(s) were created (or destroyed), a brief description of the reason why those blot(s) were created (or destroyed), and an indication of whether any created blot(s) are forgiveable or whether they deprive an officeholder of eir monthly salary per Rule 2559. 3. A description and the current status of all instances since the most recent Weekly Report in which any of the following occurred: Summary Judgement was imposed (or attempted to be imposed), a Finger was Pointed (or attempted to be Pointed), an investigation into a Pointed Finger was concluded, or a formal apology under Rule 2557 was made (or attempted). In addition, the Referee MAY announce in this section of the Weekly Report the conclusion of any investigation of a Pointed Finger for which the Referee is the investigator." immediately after this paragraph: "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." / On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:26 AM D Margaux wrote: > > Yes, that makes sense. Seems like the best reading of the rules G. > quoted above. > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:48 AM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > You are indeed missing something. Per the assets rule (or technically > > rules, but the ruleset doesn’t reflect that yet) saying that e is > > recordkeepor is more or less equivalent to what you added. It also implies > > that the report is self-ratifying. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > > I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to > > > actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's > > > a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless > > > someone tells me I'm missing something: > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix > > > AI: 1.0 > > > Author: D. Margaux > > > > > > Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: > > > > > > "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots > > > possessed by each impure person." > > > > > > immediately after this sentence: > > > > > > "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > From: D Margaux > > > Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM > > > Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report > > > To: > > > > > > > > > I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim > > > Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the > > > below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim > > > Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the > > > Referee's Weekly Report. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > > > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 > > > Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 > > > (all times UTC) > > > > > > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > > > > > PersonBlots > > > - > > > Murphy 3 > > > V.J. Rada2 > > > Kenyon 10 > > > Corona 7 > > > Publius 1 > > > ATMunn 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOT HISTORY > > > > > > PersonChange Date Reason > > > -- - --- > > > G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense > > > Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) > > > ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly > > > Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly > > > Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly > > > Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly > > > Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense > > > ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense > > > Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense > > > Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald
Re: DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
Yes, that makes sense. Seems like the best reading of the rules G. quoted above. On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:48 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > > You are indeed missing something. Per the assets rule (or technically > rules, but the ruleset doesn’t reflect that yet) saying that e is > recordkeepor is more or less equivalent to what you added. It also implies > that the report is self-ratifying. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to > > actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's > > a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless > > someone tells me I'm missing something: > > > > > > / > > > > Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix > > AI: 1.0 > > Author: D. Margaux > > > > Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: > > > > "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots > > possessed by each impure person." > > > > immediately after this sentence: > > > > "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." > > > > / > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: D Margaux > > Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM > > Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report > > To: > > > > > > I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim > > Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the > > below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim > > Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the > > Referee's Weekly Report. > > > > > > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 > > Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 > > (all times UTC) > > > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > > > PersonBlots > > - > > Murphy 3 > > V.J. Rada2 > > Kenyon 10 > > Corona 7 > > Publius 1 > > ATMunn 1 > > > > > > > > BLOT HISTORY > > > > PersonChange Date Reason > > -- - --- > > G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense > > Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) > > ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly > > Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly > > Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly > > Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly > > Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense > > ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense > > Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense > > Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald Tournament > > V.J. Rada +1(S,D)15 Jul 2018 Late Referee Weekly > > ATMunn +1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > > Publius+1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > > V.J. Rada -1 26 Jul 2018 Expunged > > Murphy -1 31 Jul 2018 Expunged > > Corona +3(f) 26 Aug 2018 Late action on CoE > > > > > > (f)=forgivable by R2557 > > (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 > > (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479 > >
Re: DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
You are indeed missing something. Per the assets rule (or technically rules, but the ruleset doesn’t reflect that yet) saying that e is recordkeepor is more or less equivalent to what you added. It also implies that the report is self-ratifying. -Aris On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM D Margaux wrote: > I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to > actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's > a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless > someone tells me I'm missing something: > > > / > > Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix > AI: 1.0 > Author: D. Margaux > > Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: > > "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots > possessed by each impure person." > > immediately after this sentence: > > "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." > > / > > > -- Forwarded message - > From: D Margaux > Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM > Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report > To: > > > I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim > Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the > below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim > Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the > Referee's Weekly Report. > > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > > Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 > Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 > (all times UTC) > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > PersonBlots > - > Murphy 3 > V.J. Rada2 > Kenyon 10 > Corona 7 > Publius 1 > ATMunn 1 > > > > BLOT HISTORY > > PersonChange Date Reason > -- - --- > G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense > Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) > ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly > Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly > Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly > Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly > Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense > ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense > Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense > Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald Tournament > V.J. Rada +1(S,D)15 Jul 2018 Late Referee Weekly > ATMunn +1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > Publius+1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > V.J. Rada -1 26 Jul 2018 Expunged > Murphy -1 31 Jul 2018 Expunged > Corona +3(f) 26 Aug 2018 Late action on CoE > > > (f)=forgivable by R2557 > (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 > (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479 >
Re: DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
The Referee's Weekly Report is inferred from R2555: > The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots. and > Blots are an indestructible fixed currency which leads to R2166: > The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) > defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That > entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and > their owners. and finally R2143: > Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's report, > without specifying which one, is part of eir weekly report. along with the first part of R2143 which defines weekly reports. That's not to say that your way wouldn't be a whole lot clearer and welcome as an addition. You may want to add some other things not covered (e.g. track the results of finger-pointing/apologies?) On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, D Margaux wrote: > I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to > actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's > a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless > someone tells me I'm missing something: > > > / > > Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix > AI: 1.0 > Author: D. Margaux > > Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: > > "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots > possessed by each impure person." > > immediately after this sentence: > > "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." > > / > > > -- Forwarded message - > From: D Margaux > Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM > Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report > To: > > > I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim > Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the > below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim > Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the > Referee's Weekly Report. > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 > Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 > (all times UTC) > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > PersonBlots > - > Murphy 3 > V.J. Rada2 > Kenyon 10 > Corona 7 > Publius 1 > ATMunn 1 > > > > BLOT HISTORY > > PersonChange Date Reason > -- - --- > G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense > Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) > ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly > Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly > Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly > Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly > Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense > ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense > Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense > Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald Tournament > V.J. Rada +1(S,D)15 Jul 2018 Late Referee Weekly > ATMunn +1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > Publius+1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > V.J. Rada -1 26 Jul 2018 Expunged > Murphy -1 31 Jul 2018 Expunged > Corona +3(f) 26 Aug 2018 Late action on CoE > > > (f)=forgivable by R2557 > (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 > (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479 >
DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless someone tells me I'm missing something: / Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix AI: 1.0 Author: D. Margaux Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots possessed by each impure person." immediately after this sentence: "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." / -- Forwarded message - From: D Margaux Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report To: I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the Referee's Weekly Report. The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) PersonBlots - Murphy 3 V.J. Rada2 Kenyon 10 Corona 7 Publius 1 ATMunn 1 BLOT HISTORY PersonChange Date Reason -- - --- G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald Tournament V.J. Rada +1(S,D)15 Jul 2018 Late Referee Weekly ATMunn +1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ Publius+1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly V.J. Rada -1 26 Jul 2018 Expunged Murphy -1 31 Jul 2018 Expunged Corona +3(f) 26 Aug 2018 Late action on CoE (f)=forgivable by R2557 (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8089
You're absolutely right - so we need one more vote. I was misled by CFJ 1652, which I read in passing when I was going through the FLR a few days ago... -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 27, 2018 2:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Remember not to count D Margaux's vote as e was not a player > when the decision was distributed (R683). > > On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Thank you everyone, we do now have enough votes to pass quorum. > > However, I will hold off on actually resolving the decision until Aris has > > done the next distribution, because otherwise quorum for that distribution > > will rise again. And I think we've had more than enough quorum troubles > > recently. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On August 26, 2018 6:09 PM, Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote: > > > > > > 8089* Trigon, [1] 1.0 Revamping movement v3.2 > > > > PRESENT
