On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:03:02 +0000 "Elliott Hird" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The question is, does the "so" in the second sentence refer to > > "deregister[ing]" or to "deregister[ing] by announcement?" If the latter, > > then even deregistrations by means of a Cantus Cygneus trigger a thirty day > > window. > > > > -- > > > > Elysion > > > > > Arguments: Again, strong precedence. > > If we ignore precedence we have to evaluate this based on wherever the > gamestate got stuck and we're actually playing now... years in the > past... I only see two instances in the Registrar's report of a player deregistering in a Writ of FAGE and reregistering again within 30 days. The first was Kelly in 1995. Was the language in question even a part of 869 that early? The second instance is BobTHJ in January 2008. Digging through the archives, it looks like it generated some discussion, but I don't see a CFJ on it. Thus, we cannot conclusively say that BobTHJ's registration was permitted -- it could have been against the rules but merely went unchallenged. I also dispute that just two examples constitute a strong precedent, particularly when one is more than a decade old. Regardless, the Registrar's report has since been ratified, so I don't think it would generate any more redetermination than we're already facing with the scam attempt. -- Elysion
