On Oct 26, 2014, at 10:51 PM, omd wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Tanner Swett <tannersw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Amend Rule 2160 "Deputisation" by appending the paragraph >> >> A rule which purports to allow a person to specially deputise >> under particular circumstances thereby makes it POSSIBLE for the >> person to do so > > That's a weird formulation - a rule that says e CAN do it actually > only means e CAN do it under certain conditions, and it's left > implicit that special deputisation otherwise has the same effects as > deputisation. Maybe reword?
Yeah, I agree that the "CAN only sometimes means CAN" thing is a little weird. I'll think about that phrasing. Do you have any suggestions there? What I'm leaving implicit is that special deputisation *is* deputisation. But maybe it shouldn't be, since we probably don't want special deputisation to have the same effects as ordinary deputisation. —the Warrigal
