On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 23:53 +, omd wrote:
> Referee Eritivus^ 4 Nov 14 30 Oct 14
> [...]
> ^ Held iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov 00:01.
> Otherwise vacant. One possible such violation is under CFJ.
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 01:21 +, Eritivus wrot
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> There is always the Referee (as an office), even when there is no
> officeholder. I believe the (real, not hypothetical) obligation was
> the office's, despite its vacancy. E.g. CFJ 2437?
For the record, if the obligation actually belonged to the
On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 00:44 +, omd wrote:
> You could have said so. :) But I don't think that works, because
> there was no Referee to be obligated at the time; the deputisation
> rule talks about hypothetical obligations, but the office
> hypothetically being filled at the time of deputisatio
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> > I was relying on (what I believed to be) the fact that the obligation
> > to issue a Card during the week of 27 Oct (because violations occurred
> > during that week) converted into an open-ended obligation (CFJ
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Eritivus wrote:
> I was relying on (what I believed to be) the fact that the obligation
> to issue a Card during the week of 27 Oct (because violations occurred
> during that week) converted into an open-ended obligation (CFJs
> 2120/2121) which could be deputised f
On Sun, 2014-11-09 at 23:53 +, omd wrote:
> Referee Eritivus^ 4 Nov 14 30 Oct 14
> [...]
> ^ Held iff any rule violation occurred between 3 Nov 00:00 and 4 Nov 00:01.
> Otherwise vacant. One possible such violation is under CFJ.
Huh. When I deputised, I intended the relevant p
6 matches
Mail list logo
