On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 07:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Secretary's Weekly Report > > > > Just to make absolutely sure: > > > > CoE: You are not the Secretary. > > C'mon now. You just said yourself that the rule was designed so that > anyone could do it. CoEing the Officeholder switch in the ADoP Report > has nothing to do with the values of switches in this report. Whether > or not I'm the secretary or not has no bearing on whether the report > (the document) claims to be a particular report of particular switches. > I don't really want to explore all these tertiary issues that come from > ignoring plain readings of the rules. Please CoE on the contents of > the report (the switch values) if you find it necessary.
Actually, my assumption was that as you claim not to be bound by the rules, and thus rule 2143 in particular, I had no basis on which to expect you to put in the normal effort that an officer does to verify the correctness of the report. Normally, when I see an office report, I'm assuming that the officer has made at least a good-faith effort to ensure that it's correct. Given that part of the point of your original test was to violate that rule, it seems inappropriate to allow the report to self-ratify, on the basis that the context implies that there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification, I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake, and b) hardest for you to correct. -- ais523
