On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:59:08 +0000 woggle <woggl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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 > > Thanks for the background, I hadn't looked up the full CFJ. Perhaps the note referring to it should be removed from the FLR then? -- aranea
