On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> R2160 reads, in part:
>
> >A player (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved
> >for an office-holder as if e held the office if
> >
> >1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
> > holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is
> > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action);
> >
> >2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
> > other than by deputisation, if e held the office;
> >
> >3. either (i) a time limit by which the rules require the action
> > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant;
> >
> >4. either (i) the office is vacant, (ii) the aforementioned time
> > limit expired more than fourteen days ago, or (iii) the deputy
> > announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended
> > to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular
> > action; and
> >
> >5. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is
> > doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation
>
>
> I think this may allow deputisation for an office for a previous missed
> report, even if a report is later published.
>
> For example, say the Murderor SHALL publish a weekly report, and failed
> to do so one year ago. I think all of the conditions in R2160 would be
> fulfilled:
>
> 1. Yes, because the Murderor SHALL publish that report.
>
> 2. Yes, because the Murderor CAN publish a Murderor's weekly report
>
> 3. Yes, because the time limit for that missed week has still expired.
> The fact that a report was later published does not retroactively
> un-violate that time limit.
>
> 4. Yes, because the time limit to publish the missed report expired more
> than 14 days ago (again, this isn't retroactively un-violated).
>
> 5. Yes, trivially fulfilled.
I have also wondered this and I think it's a plausible reading. I
think there's an old CFJ on the books that says "publishing a report
satisfies all previous duties to publish that report (though that
doesn't remove punishments for being late)". But that's a vague
memory I'll have to go digging for, and it would have predated
deputisation. -G.
