On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, rule 2161 says "such an assignment"; my assignment was sufficiently > unusual that I don't think it qualifies as "such an assignment", and > therefore is not forbidden by rule 2161.
I disagree. R2193 only empowers the Monster to deputise for an office "as if e held" that office. If the Monster held the office of CotC, it would not be able to assign that particular ID number, and therefore it cannot assign it via deputisation either. And yes, I do believe that R2160(d) is redundant. -root
