On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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? > > The interpretation most likely intended, which seems not to have been > directly > addressed, is that for BobTHJ to "deregister" means to "deregister BobTHJ", > rather than to "deregister emself". > > In this reading, Zefram deregistered BobTHJ on behalf of the office of the > Registrar in eir Writ of FAGE, while e (allegedly) deregistered BobTHJ on > behalf of BobTHJ-in-Vote-Market in eir (alleged) deputisation attempt. > > (If this seems implausible, consider the precedent given in the last > paragraph > of the ruling on CFJ 1895.) > > It is clear from the proto-arguments that the no-deputisation interpretation > makes internal sense; it is unclear to me that the yes-deputisation one > doesn't. I see no compelling reason from within the rules to choose one over > the other. >
What permits the BobTHJ-in-Vote-Market position to deregister? Certainly the Vote Market agreement can not provide a mechanism for deregistration (or if it did Agora would not recognize it). BobTHJ
