Overwatch Matchmaking s on or before 2016-10-25

Darth Dracaryis, 2016-10-25 23:30:34 UTC

For completion of multiplayer matches in Battlefront on or before 2016-10-25

Darth Dracaryis, 2016-10-25 23:30:32 UTC

Overwatch Matchmaking s on or before 2016-10-25

Darth Dracaryis, 2016-10-25 23:30:30 UTC

For completion of multiplayer matches in Battlefront on or before 2016-10-25

Darth Dracaryis, 2016-10-25 23:30:19 UTC

Overwatch Matchmaking s on or before 2016-10-25

Darth Dracaryis, 2016-10-25 23:30:16 UTC

PvP matches played on or before 2016-10-25

Darth Dracaryis, 2016-10-25 23:30:13 UTC

For achieving 3rd place in the Week 1 puzzle competition.

General Daniel Stephens, 2016-10-25 04:30:26 UTC

For achieving 2nd place in the Week 1 puzzle competition.

General Daniel Stephens, 2016-10-25 04:30:25 UTC

For achieving 1st place in the Week 1 puzzle competition.

General Daniel Stephens, 2016-10-25 04:30:25 UTC

Members of the Appeals Panel generally serve for a period of six months. I've chosen to ignore that term limit for this group of Appeals Panel members because I truly enjoyed working with each of them and did not want to lose their contributions to my team. As a result, the current Appeals Panel members have served for over a year.

There is a misconception that the Appeals Panel is simply an "on call" position. That is, people think that this is a position that people sit in and don't have to do anything unless there is an actual appeal. That perception is incorrect, at least during my time as Justicar. I have endeavored to use the members of the Appeals Panel more as magistrates that assist me with the ongoing development of the Chamber of Justice. To that end, the Appeals Panel members have helped me with projects, given me important feedback, and been part of a team effort over the last year.

Zoron, in particular, was instrumental in helping develop the revised Covenant. During the early revision stages of the Covenant, I provided a copy of the Covenant to each of the Appeals Members to give feedback. I asked them to specifically focus on the portions dealing with the CoJ and the Appeals Panel. Zoron went beyond what I asked and gave instrumental feedback on many portions, including the Appeals Panel sections. What the members will see in part as a result of his efforts is a modernized and updated Appeals Panel when the new Covenant is adopted.

To be more specific, Zoron thoroughly reviewed the 25-page Covenant and provided 97 substantive comments on the text, the vast majority of which resulted in revisions to the document. For example, Zoron identified inconsistencies in time periods and voting thresholds for votes which resulted in me standardizing those time and vote thresholds in the Covenant. He identified multiple areas where the Appeals Panel should have a review or where the review status was not clearly handled. He suggested changes to style, text and formatting for consistency throughout the document. He found multiple "loopholes" that have now been closed, including, for instance, who can serve on certain juries. These were all issues that I had overlooked, and his suggestions ultimately tightened and clarified the Covenant a great deal.

I have been grateful to have Zoron on my staff and can only thank him through this small effect. I hope to work with him again in the future.

Thank you,

Jac

Jac Cotelin, 2016-10-25 02:27:30 UTC