Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

Oh boy, I get to figure out ratification! Gaelan > On Apr 12, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > > G. wrote: > >> GUESS WHAT: It's worse than that. There *is* no Referee's weekly report! >> There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report". > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > Sigh. I deputize for the REFEREE to resolve the finger-pointing as > > indicated > > below. > > Leaving this out of the ADoP history, as you already were Referee > (unless I missed something else). The subsequent conversation was

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

G. wrote: Sigh. I deputize for the REFEREE to resolve the finger-pointing as indicated below. Leaving this out of the ADoP history, as you already were Referee (unless I missed something else).

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

G. wrote: GUESS WHAT: It's worse than that. There *is* no Referee's weekly report! There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report". How long has that been the case, so I can remove relevant bits from the ADoP database?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

Ah, I forgot that asset clause, and that pledges are assets. We're all good then, you're right. My deputization for finger-pointing should be good, I think that's the only official duty I tried to do when we thought I was Referee (other than a now-owed report). The clause you're seeking is

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

There is the following provision "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." I'm 95% sure there was at one point a rule that said "if

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

>I deputize for the Registrar You'll have to do this again. On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > GUESS WHAT: It's worse than that. There *is* no Referee's weekly report! > There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report". > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Referee] Weekly Report

Just checked it and yes, you're right. By a few hours, it was in the 28th. On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Genuine correction: By UTC, I think my Pink Slip hit on Feb 28 not > March 1? Matters for payday. > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Referee] Weekly Report

Ah OK On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Sorry, I was just catching the lack of that stuff in the top line > ("recent events") which doesn't ratify. Was puzzled by the line > between "previous report" and "last report" not sure the difference >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Referee] Weekly Report

Genuine correction: By UTC, I think my Pink Slip hit on Feb 28 not March 1? Matters for payday. On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Sorry, I was just catching the lack of that stuff in the top line > ("recent events") which doesn't ratify. Was puzzled by the line > between "previous

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Referee] Weekly Report

I don't get that first part. The "spoiling fun" cards are there, the red one I got and then the counter card you got (gmail screwed with the formatting somehow, first time I do this... But aside from awkward spacing, its there:): > 8 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam is issued a Red Card by Summary Judgement

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Referee] Weekly Report

Sorry, I was just catching the lack of that stuff in the top line ("recent events") which doesn't ratify. Was puzzled by the line between "previous report" and "last report" not sure the difference there? No biggie just the format fooled me. On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Coe: