Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: >> 2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Clinching evidence: >> >> The player did not deregister. The registrar deregistered the player. > > Wasn't this the source of BobTHJs contract-to-deregister scam (e > contracted to deregister for a fee, had the Registrar do so via > Writ of FAGE, then re-registered immediately as e hadn't triggered > the 30-day wait? > > And didn't we fix some aspect of cantus cygnus to plug that hole? > Could've sworn we voted on a fix but the rule sure doesn't look like > it now. P5603 would have fixed it, but it was voted down. In BobTHJ's example, the courts found that the indirect deregistration did not meet the terms of the contract, and so it probably wasn't seen as a high priority. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Clinching evidence: > > The player did not deregister. The registrar deregistered the player. Wasn't this the source of BobTHJs contract-to-deregister scam (e contracted to deregister for a fee, had the Registrar do so via Writ of FAGE, then re-registered immediately as e hadn't triggered the 30-day wait? And didn't we fix some aspect of cantus cygnus to plug that hole? Could've sworn we voted on a fix but the rule sure doesn't look like it now. -G. ps. whether it works or not on technicalities, on the scam: always good to see a clever Second Intention.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...
2008/11/17 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 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. > > Nobody commented - and I believe we have talked about this on a-d before. > Clinching evidence: The player did not deregister. The registrar deregistered the player.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...
2008/11/17 Joshua Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. Nobody commented - and I believe we have talked about this on a-d before.
DIS: Re: BUS: If at first you don't succeed...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:03:02 + "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
