I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer before starting with rulekeepor. It's an unholy blend of a lot of work, in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.) I think the position is historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among experienced players. (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).
I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed... On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote: > You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in > PSS' pledge > false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it as "if you > don't do it, > they will". > 天火狐 > > On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine? > > -- > Trigon > > On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt" <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet. > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the > title "Deputising for the rulekeepor". > > -- > Trigon > > On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt" <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Huh? When? > > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor. > > -- > Trigon > > On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is > still possible. > > > On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there... > > > > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise > > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, > > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations? > > > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au > > <mailto:j...@iinet.net.au>> wrote: > > > > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in > > confusion > > is really troubling... > > > > > > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote: > > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've > > been > > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out. > > > > > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm > > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it > > might be > > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of > > missed > > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's > > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize. > > Rulekeepor > > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because > > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a > > report). > > > I think every other office is OK? > > > > > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my > > weeklies > > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are > > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is > > > important. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com > > <mailto:aler...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com > > <mailto:vijar...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs. > > >> > > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been > > keeping them up > > >> to date. > > >> > > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the > > original > > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may > > be the > > >> single most common CFJ text of all time). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
