2009/6/7 Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com>: > Tiger wrote: > >> 2009/6/7 Benjamin Caplan <celestialcognit...@gmail.com>: >>> Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Jonatan >>>> Kilhamn<jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com> 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)]. > > That's what I hoped. Otherwise I would have tried to get the panel to not remand.
-- -Tiger
