On 08/31/14 22:45, Luis Ressel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:33:13 +0000
> woggle <woggl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rule 2160/12 (Power=3)
>> Deputisation
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
>> holder of that office.
>>
>> - woggle
>
> I disagree.
You disagree with the text of the rule??
> I also initially thought so when reading that rule some
> days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I
> discovered that CFJ:
>
> [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated
> as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action,
> and lost it immediately after.]
>
> In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is
> therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states.
At the time of that CFJ, Rule 2160 did not contain the text about gaining the
office. It read:
Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the
office is vacant, would so require if the office were
filled); and
(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
performed has expired; and
(c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes
of the particular action; and
(d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
other than by deputisation, if e held the office.
If you look up CFJ 2400 (http://cfj.qoid.us/2400 ), you'll see that the CFJ was
about whether "as if e held a particular office" was powerful enough to make the
deputy continue to pseudo-hold the office for the purpose of obligations
resulting for eir deputisation.
- woggle
