Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wanted it.
On 10/22/2017 03:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > (was this meant to be just to me?) I'm not planning on doing anything > myself to start an election or anything... I mainly didn't want Trigon > to put work into it or think e could just grab it, because of exactly > what you said, I assumed you were putting work in already. > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> I'd appreciate if you would at least waiit because I have already >> embarked on clearing the back log. >> >> >> On 10/22/2017 03:18 PM, Kerim Aydin 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). >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
