Tiger wrote: > 2009/6/7 Benjamin Caplan <[email protected]>: >> 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? >> > Hmm. You're right, it's more complex than I thought. In realised too > late that I had a judgment pending and judged it the way I first read > the rule. Sorry. > I recuse myself from this case.
It's reasonably clear from context that you meant 2544 rather than 2573, and a close examination of the rules indicates that judges remain assigned post-judgement (they used to work that way, and still do; in particular, R911 does not explicitly reassign the prior judge, merely reopens the prior question). So yes, I think this pre-emptive recusal is effective, and boosts 2544's II to 2 [R2225(2)], but does not affect the validity of 2544a's current panel [R1868(4)].
