It better be a report, or it wouldn't self ratify, which we seem to be
assuming it does.
-Aris
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>> >
>>
>
