Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jonatan > Kilhamn<[email protected]> wrote: >> I really couldn't find any other way of reading that rule that made as >> much sense as the one I ruled about. Your alleged office is part of >> your alleged identity the way I see it. > > I CFJ on: "I am the same person who held the office of IADoP for 12 months."
Gratuitous arguments: Is a specification of identity by means of peripheral attributes the same as identity itself? Suppose a message purporting to exercise various powers of an office contained a signature falsely claiming that the message was sent by the current holder of that office (mentioning only the office name, not the player's nickname). Would the signature ratify that the actual sender held the office, or that the actual officeholder sent the message? Suppose a message purporting to exercise various powers of one office contained a signature falsely claiming that the message was sent by the current holder of another office (mentioning only the office name, not the player's nickname); and further suppose that in fact the two offices were held by the same player (who was not the message's true sender). What would ratify in this case?
