On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> For all *practical* purposes you can "be" BobTHJ in terms of satisfying eir >> duties, but you can't take the final leap and actually *be* BobTHJ in terms >> of >> assuming all of eir guaranteed R101 (or other natural, inalienable) rights. > > I envisioned it as working like executorship used to. We didn't have > metaphysical problems there (or, at least, not so much that they got in > the way).
IIRC, that worked because the executorship rules explicitly allowed you to act as if you were the person, not the position. So we explicitly coded the metaphysical leap, rather than trying to infer it. In other words, if you publish a report for "root the Assessor", the executor rules created the legal fiction that root performed the action, and it worked because root was the Assessor. The current deputisation Rules hold it worked because you (for the purposes of that report) were the Assessor. This results in quite a few differences: for example, it makes the person required to respond to COEs root in the first case and you in the second. -Goethe
