Kerim Aydin wrote: >> ============================== CFJ 1895 ============================== >> BobTHJ is an R2160 'position' ... >This Court finds FALSE.
Good analysis. >> ============================== CFJ 1899 ============================== >> BobTHJ CAN register. ... >First, I offer this clarification. It is not, strictly speaking, by virtue >of "being BobTHJ" that Zefram is taken to deputize, it is by virtue of BobTHJ >holding the position of "party to the Vote Market who has sold a particular >ticket and thus incurred an obligation". Not quite. I didn't claim that "being BobTHJ" was the position I was deputising for, nor the position of "party to ...". It is the intersection of the two that matters, which is why I juxtaposed the clauses. It was not any old obligation to deregister that I was concerned with; it was specifically the obligation *that BobTHJ had incurred*. That obligation existed due to the specific role that BobTHJ had taken in the Vote Market, and it was *that* role, not a generic "party to the Vote Market who has ..." role, that I was deputising for. > If the agent of Registrar (through Cantus Cygneus) doesn't >satisfy, neither would the agent of a deputy. Nice point. Its validity comes down to the question of how much BobTHJness is entailed in the position that I was deputising for. As noted above, I think there was more of that aspect than you have taken into account. Certainly more BobTHJness than the registrar or CotC has by virtue of office. Of course, how much BobTHJness is possible in the position is limited ultimately by CFJ 1895, where you've reasonably ruled that personal identity per se is not deputisable. Where's the limit? >deputizing to fulfill the obligation does so by simply "deregistering", >not by "deregistering someone else." This point also depends on there being no BobTHJness at all in the position deputised for. If there is any, then the target of "deregister" can sensibly be whatever BobTHJness is there and deputisable for. >REASON 3 >If the deputy takes on this obligation, but is unable, even as a >"counterfactual condition", to "be BobTHJ" as required by R2160d, then this >arbitrary closeness described in CFJ 1895 is not enough to give the deputy >the ability to deregister another player, as no mechanism exists. This is the core of your argument, addressing exactly the point that the first two reasons rely on. You are arguing, essentially, that BobTHJ's personal identity is crucial to eir ability and obligation to deregister emself, and that (as you ruled in CFJ 1895) this personal identity can't be deputised for. I think you should discuss that explicitly, in such terms. >finds CFJ 1899 FALSE (if the CFJ 1897 doesn't match, that that one or this >one must be appealed). If CFJ 1897 is correctly judged FALSE by BobTHJ, then it wasn't judged at all. -zefram
