(Oh gosh. What have I gotten myself into?)
I don't understand the significance of your message. What should I wait
to do? Do you mean I shouldn't work on the ruleset?
On 10/22/2017 1:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
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).
>
>
--
Trigon
