I agree. I'm considering putting myself up for election on it as a result.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> 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 Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could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).
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to