Totally agree, the CoE part is an unforeseen loophole!
I suppose up you could argue that the R2201 duty is to publish a "revision"
which isn't the same thing as a report?
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Just to clarify my original argument, it's my belief that duty
> fulfilling report is one that fulfills an official obligation (you
> could be punished for not doing that job, and now you can't). A CoE
> revision fulfills the duty to handle the CoE, and it is a report,
> so... Basically, I agree with the conclusion, but not the arguments to
> get there.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 3, 2017, at 1:12 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> I find the statement
> >>
> >>> If V.J. Rada posted the following text contained in braces
> >>> to a public forum {{I CoE my Reportor's report for no reason, accept
> >>> it, publish the following report and claim 5 Shinies.
> >>> Title: Newspaper
> >>> ---Words---}}
> >>> Agora would transfer em 5 Shinies.
> >>
> >> to be TRUE.
> >
> > I move to reconsider this judgement.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
