> > If the agent of Registrar (through Cantus Cygneus) doesn't > >satisfy, neither would the agent of a deputy. > > Nice point. Its validity comes down to the question of how much > BobTHJness is entailed in the position that I was deputising for. > As noted above, I think there was more of that aspect than you have taken > into account. Certainly more BobTHJness than the registrar or CotC has > by virtue of office. Of course, how much BobTHJness is possible in the > position is limited ultimately by CFJ 1895, where you've reasonably ruled > that personal identity per se is not deputisable. Where's the limit?
The interpretation most likely intended, which seems not to have been directly addressed, is that for BobTHJ to "deregister" means to "deregister BobTHJ", rather than to "deregister emself". In this reading, Zefram deregistered BobTHJ on behalf of the office of the Registrar in eir Writ of FAGE, while e (allegedly) deregistered BobTHJ on behalf of BobTHJ-in-Vote-Market in eir (alleged) deputisation attempt. (If this seems implausible, consider the precedent given in the last paragraph of the ruling on CFJ 1895.) It is clear from the proto-arguments that the no-deputisation interpretation makes internal sense; it is unclear to me that the yes-deputisation one doesn't. I see no compelling reason from within the rules to choose one over the other. I believe the second sentence of R217 applies. We have here a moral, not a factual, decision. Either choice makes sense; which one is _right_?
