spoon-business: RFJ 42

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Statement:

"The actions of a Player who holds an Office are actions that are
committed by the Player and the Officer."

Ruling:

TRUE

Plaintiff's Analysis:

>> But you made a Motion for Repayment for it that was active when voting
>> began.
>
>Actually, I didn't.  The Bank did... [snip]

The statements above seems to indicate that the Officer and the Player are
different entities.  I believe that they are the same entity that perform
different tasks depending on the situation and the applicable Rules.  The
Player Joel states that the Player Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment,
and Poulenc claims that e did not, the Bank did.  I want a ruling on
whether Poulenc made the Motion for Repayment in his role as an Officer or
if the Banker as a separate entity made the Motion.

Judge's Analysis:

Rule 108/0: "A Player holding an Office is an Officer. Officers have
certain duties and privileges by virtue of their Offices..."

This makes it clear that "Officer" is a subset of "Player," specifically a
Player who holds an Office as defined elsewhere in the Rules, and who
holds "certain duties and privileges."

Examples:

Rule 318/0: "The Office of The Banker is an elective office. It is the
responsibility of the Banker to post actions to the public forum for the
Bank... It is up to the Banker to decide what actions the Bank will take."

Rule 321/0: "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The
OBC is responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object
currently owned by each Agent."

Rules 208/1, 310/0, and 324/0 all work in roughly the same way: defining
an Office, and clarifying that duties are attached to an Office, which
(per 108/0) is merely a set of special privileges and responsibilities
assigned to a Player.

In general, actions of an Officer are in fact committed by the Player
holding that office, and as such I rule TRUE.

There are a few specific exceptions (like Rule 317/2, where the Banker
orders the Bank to submit a motion, but the motion is NOT actually
submitted by the Banker), but all the exceptions of which I am aware are
sufficiently clear in the Rules.