It never has and it never will. Ruleset ratification causes nasty formatting problems, and leaves the door open for some extremely dangerous scams. Anyhow, unless someone has gone and ratified it by proposal without me noticing (hard, given that I’m Promotor, although I’ve managed to forget things in the past) it hasn’t ratified.
-Aris On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:30 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > It doesn't? Well clearly I am not a reliable source for information > about ratification. > > On 10/18/2018 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Wait, sorry. What do you mean ruleset ratification? We haven’t ratified > the > > ruleset in almost a year, if my memory is correct. It isn’t > self-ratifying. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:14 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> This rule was changed to a strange list formatting method by ruleset > >> ratification thanks to Kenyon. The second lines of the last two items of > >> the list were starred as well as the first. An inconsequential change, > >> but it annoyed me so here we are. > >> > >> I submit and pend the following proposal: > >> > >> ----- > >> title: This isn't list formatting! > >> ai: 1 > >> author: Trigon > >> coauthors: > >> > >> Amend rule 2492 'Recusal' by replacing the list with: > >> > >> * the CFJ becomes unassigned; > >> > >> * the recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge > >> for a week; and > >> > >> * the recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to > >> make the Arbitor's job easier. > >> > >> -- > >> Trigon > >> > > -- > Trigon >
