A recently-adopted proposal downgraded secured (at power of rule) to secured-1. But at that point since it's a restricted action anyway I didn't see much point in the security?
I'm guessing that the closure of the CFJ would re-announce that the circumstances exist and re-start the clock, or someone could re-announce the conditions after the case was closed, but you're right it could be clearer. On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto, please wordsmith? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Amend Rule 649 (Patent Titles) to read in full: > > > > A Patent Title is a legal title given to a person in recognition > > of the person's distinction. The Herald is an office; its holder > > is responsible for tracking Patent Titles in eir monthly report. > > > > When the rules state that a person earns a Patent Title, then > > the Herald CAN award em that title by announcement, and e SHALL > > do so in a timely fashion after the circumstances that earned the > > person the title are announced, unless there is an open judicial > > case contesting the validity of those circumstances, or unless e > > has already awarded that title to that person for that specific > > set of circumstances. > > > > The Herald CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified > > player With 2 Agoran Consent. > > You removed the "Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured." clause for > some reason. > > Also, admittedly already in the current text, but I think it's unclear what, > if any, the obligations and timing are once the judicial case gets closed > again. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
