Kerim Aydin wrote: >Being a (particular) person is an identity outside the game that is >recognized and guaranteed rights within the game, but not a position >created within the game.
R2160 doesn't explicitly require that the position be rule-defined, and your argument has gone in a different direction from finding that that's implicit in "position". However, you're getting close to a sane argument that personal identity is not a position. > Particularly, it is not POSSIBLE for another >individual to "hold the position of being BobTHJ" as required by R2160(d). R2160(d) doesn't require that the deputy be able to hold the position. All it requires is that e would be able to *perform the action* *if* e held the position. If we were to accept "being BobTHJ" as a position, then it is certainly possible to conceive of the (counterfactual) situation where I held that position. R2160(d) then looks at whether, in that situation, I would be capable of deregistering BobTHJ. Since that action is performed by announcement, and I'm capable of announcing (and would still have that capability if I held the position of being BobTHJ), R2160(d) is satisfied. >I find FALSE; however, being a player, or being a party to a contract, IS >holding a position that another person could hold (of "player" and "party >to contract X" respectively) and thus "player" and "party to contract" >ARE R2160 'positions'. Interesting. If narrow-sense "player" is a position, what about broad-sense "player"? CFJ 1709 found that the rules are binding on them, so is that a position which carries obligations? > I find that while the first sentence of the >intent was, strictly speaking semantically inaccurate, the parenthetical >explanation provides enough clarity for a reasonable person to decide that >the notice satisfies R2160(c) on the basis of BobTHJ holding a specified >contractual position in the Vote Market. Thank you. I did intend the parenthetical to be taken into account, as I wasn't sure exactly which of BobTHJ's overlapping "positions" would be operative. >CFJ 1898: TRUE Even if CFJ 1897 is reversed, Zefram's message clearly > could not be taken to apply to emself, and would instead > be a failed action. And I included an interpretation clause, for overkill. -zefram
