It would appear so, my apologies.
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 1:47 AM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote:
(This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June
because ratification.)
I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distinction in the Referee
we
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM omd wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> > "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> > only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
> "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
> only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
> "new" document, or re-CoE the old on
It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't
"cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The
only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a
"new" document, or re-CoE the old one (which gives the publisher an
opportunity to deny the clai
No, report won't self ratify unless the CFJ says players CAN expunge blots
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the
> resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
>
> Jason Cobb
Oh, yes, you're correct, actually. Thank you.
In that case the tally would look like this:
++
|8089|
+--++
|Aris | FF |
|G.| P |
|Murphy||
|Trigon| F |
|twg | F |
+--++
|Kenyon||
+--++
|FOR
Luckily they're not meaningfully different and the 2nd version will
ratify minutes after the first then!
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> I made a fixed version. CoE denied.
>
>
> This too may cause the original version to self-rati
7 matches
Mail list logo
