==============================  CFJ 1898  ==============================

    Zefram is a player.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  root

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Murphy:                       03 Feb 2008 22:45:09 GMT
Assigned to root:                       03 Feb 2008 22:52:26 GMT
root recused:                           18 Feb 2008 18:41:47 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         19 Feb 2008 01:00:08 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      21 Feb 2008 19:40:21 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

BobTHJ had an overdue Vote Market obligation to deregister.  Zefram
allegedly deputised to deregister BobTHJ.

Rule 2169 (Deputisation) was recently generalised from "office" to
"position", specifically with "vote collector" in mind; extending it
to apply to "person subject to a contractual obligation" may or may
not be too great a stretch.  In addition, unlike previous cases of
deputisation, this one involves an action targeting the actor (though
Zefram specified that e was deregistering BobTHJ, and that e was not
in any way directly causing emself to be deregistered).

If either "X is a player" statement is true, then the corresponding
"X CAN register" statement is false; Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave
Agora) defines ""to be registered" as applying only to non-players,
and does not make an exception for "to register".  If either "X is a
player" statement is false, then the corresponding "X CAN register"
statement depends on how Rule 869's normal 30-day limit is affected
by the unusual targeting situation.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

Zefram's message of intent read:

> I intend to deputise for BobTHJ to deregister em.  (E is required to
> deregister emself by virtue of being BobTHJ, a party to the Vote Market
> who has thereby contracted an obligation to deregister.  Eir week to
> deregister has long expired.)

It is not, strictly speaking, by virtue of "being BobTHJ" that Zefram was
permitted to deputize, it is by virtue of BobTHJ holding the position of
"party to the Vote Market".  I find that while the first sentence of the
intent was, strictly speaking semantically inaccurate, the parenthetical
explanation provides enough clarity for a reasonable person to decide that
the notice satisfies R2160(c) on the basis of BobTHJ holding a specified
contractual position in the Vote Market (whether this succeeds or not is
the subject of other CFJs).  The later notice of 3-Feb re-included this
parenthetical explanation, so that:

> Deputising for BobTHJ, I hereby deregister BobTHJ.

again while semantically directed at the individual not the position, was
reasonably clear.  Therefore, it either succeeded or failed as an attempt
to deregister BobTHJ due to eir holding a position in the Vote Market, but
in no case can be applied to deregister Zefram.

Zefram's message clearly could not be taken to apply to emself.  Whether or
not Zefram succeeded in deregistering BobTHJ, Zefram remains a player.
Historically (for the past several years), the language and semantics of
"acting on behalf of" has been sufficiently tricky to get "semantically
perfect" that we should make reasonable allowances for intent.  This is a
reasonable allowance.