On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > There's another unrelated point to consider here, which might be invoked > in this situation (which is almost certainly a scam and/or bug that > needs fixing, but still needs CfJing on). I call for judgement on the > statement "If an officer violates a time limit to perform a required > action, then another player CAN perform that action as if e held that > office via deputisation even if the officer in question performed the > action after the time limit expired but before the deputisation, as long > as it would be possible (but not necessarily mandatory) for the officer > to perform the action in question a second time." > > Arguments on that CfJ: Rule 2160 appears to explicitly allow this; > probably that's a bug. (The only part of Rule 2160 which appears to have > a chance of preventing that is the "rules require" in part a, and that's > rather vague.)
Ok, it may be more broken than that. Recent CFJs have held that a breach of the rules related to missing a time limit occurs at the moment a time limit is passed. Once that time limit is passed, if the officer does the job anyway (late), e still has broken the rule. Which means that, once the time limit is passed, the officer is no longer required to perform the action. E is punishable for eir past failure to do, but since e breaks no more rules by continued failure, the rules are not requiring em to do it. Which means that R2160(a) and (b) can *never* be true simultaneously. Thoughts? -Goethe
