On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Luis Ressel <ara...@aixah.de> wrote: > I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some > days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I > discovered that CFJ: > > [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated > as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, > and lost it immediately after.] > > In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is > therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states.
That CFJ predates the rule by several years and is no longer applicable. -scshunt > -- > aranea >
