comex wrote:
On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Taral wrote:
Well, I guess this works as well as the original attempt. However,
it's likely to hit you with 10,000 violations of Rule 1871.
I'm not sure about that. R1871 only says that the *CotC* SHALL NOT do
this. However, I think it's more likely that it won't matter, and this
will convince Zefram to actually assign judges to those CFJs.
Actually, I'm not even sure if either of the deputisations will work. The
CotC isn't obligated to assign cases to me (just to someone), and
deputisation isn't clear on whether I can deputise with an argument (if
not then I'd consider it broken);
By "deputise with an argument", do you mean "deputise for a duty that
can be satisfied in multiple ways, stating in advance which way you
intend to choose"? I don't see why this wouldn't work, given that
you can do the same thing without the advance statement.
and changing sitting players to
standing, whether or not everyone's sitting, is not explicitly required.
Yes, this set of deputisations definitely wouldn't work.
