On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, ais523 wrote: > > > On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel <ara...@aixah.de> wrote: > > > > Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in > > > > taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any > > > > questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email. > > > > > > > If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted. > > > > Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has > > questions about being Promotor? :-P > > Except if G. managed to counterscam...
Anyone have arguments why the counterscam didn't work, assuming Alexis's idea works (in general) in the first place? If absolute accuracy is required, Alexis's report was only accurate if the deputization occurs *before* the report is published. I covered the cases in counterscam for *during* and *after*. It doesn't seem likely that a deputization can occur before the report is published, so are there arguments that it can? (or something I've missed?)
