Jump to content

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, The DA said:

Every email system I've dealt with has sent a message along the lines of 'an email to you from xxxx with subject line yyyy has been quarantined.  If you want to see this email, please contact your system admin'.

Quite. It would be utterly astonishing if a system of this kind did not have that feature enabled as a matter of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I’m reasonably techy but I’ve never heard that word being used in regards to an email.

Unless it’s just a fancy name for a junk folder.

No, it might be the term you don't recognise. It usually happens if there is an attachment.

Edited by Sergeant Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, eez-eh said:

I’m reasonably techy but I’ve never heard that word being used in regards to an email.

Unless it’s just a fancy name for a junk folder.

It is more sophisticated than a Junk folder but really not much. Instead of your email provider simply automatically redirecting to junk, a third party app quarantines unusual or suspicious emails and then sends the intended recipient an email saying “do you want to block, release or permit this sender” or similar.

It’s an additional line of defence against corporate organisations and the like inadvertently getting ravaged by a scam/virus etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every email system I've dealt with has sent a message along the lines of 'an email to you from xxxx with subject line yyyy has been quarantined.  If you want to see this email, please contact your system admin'.

I used to get this message as a daily digest, not every single time one got sent. I think it was at 8:30am every morning I'd get "3 emails have been quarantined, please contact...".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


I used to get this message as a daily digest, not every single time one got sent. I think it was at 8:30am every morning I'd get "3 emails have been quarantined, please contact...".

Fair shout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more sophisticated than a Junk folder but really not much. Instead of your email provider simply automatically redirecting to junk, a third party app quarantines unusual or suspicious emails and then sends the intended recipient an email saying “do you want to block, release or permit this sender” or similar.
It’s an additional line of defence against corporate organisations and the like inadvertently getting ravaged by a scam/virus etc.
And an additional line of defence against read receipts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The DA said:

Every email system I've dealt with has sent a message along the lines of 'an email to you from xxxx with subject line yyyy has been quarantined.  If you want to see this email, please contact your system admin'.

 

2 hours ago, eez-eh said:

I’ve never in my life heard of “quarantining” in regards to an email.

My work email server regularly intercepts suspicious mail and doesnt allow it through to my account. The next time I get a warning about it will be the first time. 

Usually end up having to check the server ourselves if we havent received something we know was sent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the spfl time line, I dont doubt its veracity but for me there are two o/s questions (desoite being pleased the vote passed). 

1 - given it is now acknowledged the vote did reach the spfl as it was their server that held it, should it not count? 

2 - is it allowed for Dundee to rescind a vote they dont deny casting because circumstances changed after they cast it? Maybe if a different vote is cast before the first arrives but the first then DID arrive befire they voted again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

As for the spfl time line, I dont doubt its veracity but for me there are two o/s questions (desoite being pleased the vote passed). 

1 - given it is now acknowledged the vote did reach the spfl as it was their server that held it, should it not count? 

2 - is it allowed for Dundee to rescind a vote they dont deny casting because circumstances changed after they cast it? Maybe if a different vote is cast before the first arrives but the first then DID arrive befire they voted again.

Perfectly legal to rescind a 'no' vote within the 28 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The DA said:

Perfectly legal to rescind a 'no' vote within the 28 days.

Mmm, I would query your use of "perfectly". Not being legally forbidden isnt quite the same thing. But yes, I accept they could just have remade the same proposal I guess and got it through if nobody else changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the spfl time line, I dont doubt its veracity but for me there are two o/s questions (desoite being pleased the vote passed).  1 - given it is now acknowledged the vote did reach the spfl as it was their server that held it, should it not count?  2 - is it allowed for Dundee to rescind a vote they dont deny casting because circumstances changed after they cast it? Maybe if a different vote is cast before the first arrives but the first then DID arrive befire they voted again. 

 

 

As has been said many times regards point 2 - on a resolution a No vote (or an abstention) can be changed but not a Yes vote.  

 

As the deadline had not actually passed then those who has not voted in favour could still have done so until that deadline - not just Dundee but Rangers or any of the others who did not agree the proposal.

 

 

Dundee's vote arriving late or otherwise is irrelevant as they had not cast a Yes vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

As has been said many times regards point 2 - on a resolution a No vote (or an abstention) can be changed but not a Yes vote.  

As the deadline had not actually passed then those who has not voted in favour could still have done so until that deadline - not just Dundee but Rangers or any of the others who did not agree the proposal.

Dundee's vote arriving late or otherwise is irrelevant as they had not cast a Yes vote.

This isn’t actually clear.

The implication of the Thistle QC’s argument was that if there were three simultaneous Championship ballots formally rejecting the proposal *at any time* the resolution is deemed to have fallen. You cannot then change your vote on a negatived resolution, but you can vote afresh on another proposed resolution that is the same in substance.

Edited by Ad Lib
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The DA said:

Perfectly legal to rescind a 'no' vote within the 28 days.

Assuming that the proposed resolution was not formally rejected as soon as three Championship clubs had lodged “No” votes.

Which isn’t clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

Assuming that the proposed resolution was not formally rejected as soon as three Championship clubs had lodged “No” votes.

Which isn’t clear.

If it was rejected, how hard would it have been for the SPFL to draw up the same vote a few hours later and repeat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, harry94 said:

If it was rejected, how hard would it have been for the SPFL to draw up the same vote a few hours later and repeat?

Probably not very difficult.  But it would have been clearer. 

had the resolution been accepted as failed on Friday night(even if the same ‘what email’ shit went on) Proper procedure would have been the spfl to state the vote had failed narrowly but they had since been contacted by a club who have indicated they are now willing to support the resolution. Therefore a further vote will be had with clubs asked to submit votes by 5pm Monday.  We’d have got to the same place but it would have been far better handled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, harry94 said:

If it was rejected, how hard would it have been for the SPFL to draw up the same vote a few hours later and repeat?

Possibly very easily. But it would then be subject to a fresh 28 day deadline and those who had previously voted Yes would have been free not to vote for it second time round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...