Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: Quite some time ago, it seems. I read the FLR at http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt, but there hasn't been an official publication this year if I read the archives right. I published one two or three days ago. http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-September/010819.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 08/31/14 22:26, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:12:02 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: - woggle, Registrar and Clerical Error Generator I'd appreciate some clarification here. In yesterday's Registrar Report you referred to yourself as a Deputy Registrar, but in todays report and also in the above signature you didn't. Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. That CFJ predates the rule by several years and is no longer applicable. -scshunt -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle I disagree. You disagree with the text of the rule?? I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. At the time of that CFJ, Rule 2160 did not contain the text about gaining the office. It read: Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if: (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office. If you look up CFJ 2400 (http://cfj.qoid.us/2400 ), you'll see that the CFJ was about whether as if e held a particular office was powerful enough to make the deputy continue to pseudo-hold the office for the purpose of obligations resulting for eir deputisation. - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: Rule 2160/12 (Power=3) Deputisation [...] When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. - woggle I disagree. You disagree with the text of the rule?? I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. At the time of that CFJ, Rule 2160 did not contain the text about gaining the office. It read: Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if: (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office. If you look up CFJ 2400 (http://cfj.qoid.us/2400 ), you'll see that the CFJ was about whether as if e held a particular office was powerful enough to make the deputy continue to pseudo-hold the office for the purpose of obligations resulting for eir deputisation. - woggle Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On 2014-08-31 17:08, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? On a related note: When was the last FLR published? -- Sprocklem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 17:10:18 -0600 Sprocklem sprock...@gmail.com wrote: On 2014-08-31 17:08, Luis Ressel wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 + woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? On a related note: When was the last FLR published? Quite some time ago, it seems. I read the FLR at http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt, but there hasn't been an official publication this year if I read the archives right. -- aranea
