"Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action."
Again, you can take it now. Its vacant. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Oh sure if someone wants to! But assuming I take on Arbitor on Wed, > I can re-assign it before the Objection period ends. (a weird quirk > of the rules is that an Arbitor is not *required* to take a case away > from a late judge, so a deputy can't do it). > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> Is it possible to use the "any player may assign an unassinged CFJ to >> emself without three objections" rule? >> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I'm don't even think it's assigned to Quazie. ais523 assigned it to >> > Sprocklem. >> > Then e assigned a different case the same number and assigned it to Quazie. >> > The case log is in error on the judge identity due to this second >> > assignment. >> > >> > Quazie judged the second case. But I think the first one might be still >> > assigned to Sprocklem and has fallen through the cracks - at least, I can't >> > find differently (though I might be missing something!) >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> You can always judge it w/ QAZ. I was about to say I could but of >> >> course I cannot. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >> >> > R869 has "A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by >> >> >> > the rules) >> >> >> > register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly >> >> >> > and reasonably >> >> >> > unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time." >> >> >> >> >> >> counter: >> >> >> >> >> >> IF you can't flip a switch to the same value that it already has, and >> >> >> have it >> >> >> count as "flipping the switch" (recent CFJ question), and IF >> >> >> "registering" is >> >> >> a synonym for "flipping the Citizenship switch to registered", THEN >> >> >> you are >> >> >> "prevented by the rules" from registering due to the fact that you are >> >> >> already >> >> >> in the registered state. >> >> > >> >> > *sigh* >> >> > >> >> > The recent CFJ referred to up there is this one, which apparently still >> >> > hasn't been judged: >> >> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3529 >> >> > >> >> > It is, in fact, the exact same situation as CuddleBeam's current one. >> >> > >> >> > (note, confusion exists because a later case was assigned the same >> >> > number >> >> > and judged under that number, but I don't think the original listed in >> >> > the >> >> > case log above was ever judged). >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J Rada >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J Rada >> > -- >From V.J Rada
