==============================  CFJ 1899  ==============================

    BobTHJ CAN register.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  root

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



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 FALSE by G.:                     22 Feb 2008 18:54:46 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

(I leave out "BobTHJ is a player" because comex already called for
judgement on that statement.)

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:

I am going to judge this case as if I was judging the statement "BobTHJ is a
Player" (CFJ 1897), as the (possibly-) judge of that case has deferred the
issue to me.  Did the following set of messages by Zefram successfully
deregister BobTHJ?

> 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.)

> Deputising for BobTHJ, I hereby deregister BobTHJ.

First, I offer this clarification.  It is not, strictly speaking, by virtue
of "being BobTHJ" that Zefram is taken to deputize, as "being BobTHJ" is not
a R2160 'position' (CFJ 1895).  I wholly accept that Zefram's messages convey
reasonably sufficient intent to deputize for a R2160 'position' of being as
close as legally possible to "being BobTHJ for the purposes of a fulfilling
specific vote market obligation" without actually being BobTHJ.

The question is, is the remaining distance between "BobTHJ" and "Zefram as
BobTHJ's Vote Market position holder", when limited by CFJ 1895, "close
for Zefram to actually deputize and deregister BobTHJ?

First of all, since the "position" in question is specific to fulfilling an
obligation, the action in question is not merely to deregister BobTHJ, but to
deregister BobTHJ in a manner that satisfies a given obligation.  The
was described in BobTHJ's vote ticket:

"Action: If all five sell tickets posted in this message are filled, I will

Judge Zefram wrote, in CFJ 1886:  "BobTHJ's obligation was specifically to
deregister emself, not merely to be deregistered."  Since, by CFJ 1895, we
can't extend a delegation of position to "being BobTHJ", a deputised
deregistration does not satisfy the obligation to deregister emself as an
act of will.  If the agent of Registrar (through Cantus Cygneus) doesn't
satisfy, neither would the agent of a deputy.  Since the "requirement" of
R2160a is (by CFJ 1886) not merely to be deregister but to self-deregister,
and because by CFJ 1985, Zefram can't get close enough to be considered
BobTHJ's "self", Zefram's attempted action of deregistering BobTHJ is actually
a different action then the one BobTHJ's "position" was required to perform
by R2160a.  Substituting one action for another may work in terms of equity,
but it is not permissible under R2160 deputization.

Secondly, there is mechanism.  The only applicable mechanism for
deregistration is contained in R869, "A player CAN deregister [emself] by
announcement."  Again, since we can't extend R2160d to allow Zefram to be
BobTHJ, there is no mechanism by which Zefram can get "close enough" to
BobTHJ to deregister em, even if they both hold or assume the position
of 'player', they remain different players.

Zefram's attempted deputization failed.  BobTHJ is still a player.  By
implication following this precedent, CFJ 1897 must be TRUE, and this court
finds CFJ 1899 FALSE (if the CFJ 1897 doesn't match, that that one or this
one must be appealed).

Two matters remain.  One:  This court specifically does not touch whether
Zefram "falling on eir own sword" and deregistering *emself* would have
have satisfied the "self deregistration" requirement.  This Court believes
that it would:  the active verb is "deregister", in the same way the verb
"submit a report" or "assign a judge" is used in other obligations.  But
here I do not press the issue as this is not what Zefram attempted.

Second:  If the Deputization Rule were phrases as "forced executorship"
rather than "becoming/holding the position", it would work perfectly well.
This is a legislative issue though, while it may have been the original
intent of the author, it may not have been for the voters (for example, this
grew out of old Rules Maud and I wrote that only applied to Officers, on the
face of it, during voting, I assumed that "R2160 position" was still limited
to Officers and possibly judges).