Kerim Aydin wrote: >If someone didn't publish a Report, you put yourself in the position and >publish the report yourself.
I perform the physical actions of sending the information to the public forum. However, the other aspects of reporting are as if the publication was made by the normal holder of the office. In particular, it satisfies *the officer's* obligation to publish. Report publication is a bit dry for this analogy. Consider assigning a judge to a CFJ, deputising for the CotC. The judge assignment is unequivocally a function of the CotC: I wouldn't be able to do it at all if I weren't (deputy) CotC. Obviously, I'm capable anyway of publishing a message in which I claim to assign a judge. But normally it wouldn't have any effect. When I deputise for the CotC, such a message takes effect *as if* it were from the CotC. >See the asymmetry of the second version? I think you've mangled the first one and actually there is no asymmetry. >To put it another way, when you deputize yourself to publish the Report, >we very specifically *don't* create the legal fiction that the other >person published the report. Not the other person, no, but the *office* published the report. That's no more nor less fictional than anything concerning these completely rule-defined entities. > So why would we create the legal fiction >that the other person deregistered? Adopting your distinction between BobTHJ-identity (not a position) and BobTHJ-as-player (a position), I can deputise for BobTHJ-as-player to deregister BobTHJ(-as-player). Then BobTHJ-as-player, which is essentially a rule-defined entity, has factually deregistered emself. -zefram
