==============================  CFJ 1702  ==============================

    A requirement to submit something to an officer is satisfied by
    publishing it, even if that office is vacant at the time.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Primo Corporation
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Murphy:                       12 Jul 2007 17:20:53 GMT
Assigned to Primo Corporation:          18 Jul 2007 21:08:18 GMT
Primo Corporation recused:              30 Jul 2007 21:05:59 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     30 Jul 2007 21:05:59 GMT
Judged TRUE by Zefram:                  01 Aug 2007 16:33:02 GMT

========================================================================

Judge Zefram's Arguments:

The rules at present do not strictly distinguish between office and
officer (i.e., between the official position and the person who occupies
that position).  In particular, rule 1006 says

      The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the
      office.

This results in idiosyncratic language where "the Registrar is an
office" and also "the Registrar may change the publicity of a forum".
Who is it that changes the publicity of a forum under rule 478?  It is
"the Registrar", which by rule 2139 is an office but by rule 1006 can
also refer to the holder of that office.  Rule 478 is arguably ambiguous
on that point, as similarly are all rules that assign obligations.

However, game custom goes beyond mere ambiguity here.  We have
traditionally taken a flexible view of offices.  For example, we
have several rules that require an office/officer to maintain certain
records, but nothing governing the transfer of records when an office
changes hands.  In that situation the perpetual existence of the office
provides a continuity of the notional record, even if there is a finite
interruption in occupancy of the office.  It has never been argued that
the obligation of the rulekeepor to maintain and report historical rule
annotations is impaired due to the obligation to record those annotations
having fallen on a previous holder of the office.

I therefore find that obligations that fall on an officer are shared
with the office itself.  More generally, those rules that can be read as
referring either to an office or to the officer are actually referring
to both together.

With this understanding, we can conceive of being able to submit a
document to a vacant office.  The remaining question is how, if at all,
this can reasonably be achieved.  Anything short of publication would
not be a reasonable interpretation; to provide the desired continuity
of officer-maintained state it is necessary that all possible new
officeholders have full access to the records affecting that office.
I find that, with this practical requirement met, the strong game custom
of using publication to submit documents to offices/officers does make
this a reasonable procedure to submit a document to a vacant office.

========================================================================