[Note: The CotC database incorrectly records the time of my assignment
to these cases.]
Certainly, the CotC was required to assign ID numbers to CFJs 2146 and
1/2147. So, any Monster CAN assign an ID number 'as if' e held the
office of CotC. Game custom is that where an officer fails to perform
a duty which might be performed multiple ways (assign one of multiple
valid ID numbers), a deputy can make the choice-- without, in fact,
even announcing beforehand which choice e intends to make. This is
required in order to allow deputies to fulfil offices' obligations in
any kind of orderly way. So I proto-judge CFJ 2146 TRUE.
If you CAN perform an action "as if" you hold an office, does that
mean you CAN perform the action, during which you act as if you hold
the office? Or does it just mean that you CAN act as if you hold the
office for the purpose of performing the action? Rule 2160, the
normal deputisation rule, requires that it be POSSIBLE for the deputy
to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the
office, but it might be (as root contends) that the requirement is
redundant.
Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
particular office (deputise for that office) if:
"as if" means (answers.com) "in the same way that it would be if", or
(mw) "as it would be if" or "as one would do if". If the Monster (or
player, in this case) *did* hold the office in question, e would be
unable to assign the ID number 1 due to Rule 2161 (b). The "as if"
limits, not extends, the meaning of the first part. Indeed, I think
we would all agree about that if not for Rule 2160 (d), "it would be
POSSIBLE...", which confuses the issue. But we need not drastically
change the interpretation of a rule, just because not doing so would
yield a redundant clasue.
With this interpretation, Rules 2160 and 2193 are merely acting as
"proxies" for the mechanisms (by announcement, etc.) provided by other
rules, and a (fake-)deputised assignment is indeed "such an
assignment" from the viewpoint of Rule 2161, and therefore INVALID. I
proto-judge CFJ 2147 FALSE.
Point of interest: the Monster couldn't have violated the SHALL, even
if e had succeeded in assigning the number 1, because I think e (well,
ais523) did reasonably believe that selecting any smaller number (than
1!) might be invalid or confusing.
