Ed Murphy wrote: >It wasn't much of an issue until the automated text started getting >posted to a-o again
It didn't have much *present* impact, but it's a faulty historical record. Of course, once you consented to be CotC, you knew of the likelihood that it would regain its contemporaneous relevance. > (evidence: neither you nor anyone else pointed >it out until then). I, of course, wasn't looking at your database at all in that period, because as CotC I maintained my own, which stayed up to date with the rule changes. I was aware that you didn't immediately update your database, which I thought was acceptable while that database was not part of the CotC's automation, but I assumed that you would fix it over time. At the very least, I thought, you'd have to have it up to date before using it for CotC work again. > I still have to spend more time figuring it out than if >I'd built it myself This should be noted as one of the perils of automation. This is part of why I favour each officer developing eir own automation. -zefram
