Ed Murphy wrote:
> Couple of misspellings. Recommend replacing the whole thing with
> something like:
>
> An officer SHALL fulfill the duties of eir office. However, if e
> violates this requirement within one week after coming to hold
> the office, then DISCHARGE is the only a
coppro wrote:
> A player holds an office if e is that office's holder.
IMO this is sufficiently covered by R754(2).
> If an office incurs and obligation, then the officer SHOULD act to
> ensure that the office meets those obligations. If an office
> incurs a penalty as a
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 12:42 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
> If the above is a proposal, I retract it.
> (now that's a new NttPF!)
It's written "NttDF" on occasion, to parallel with "NttPF". It's
actually a case I don't know of; saying in the body of a message that
something's a proto prevents it being a
3 matches
Mail list logo
