On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:02 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <[email protected]> wrote: > I CFJ: "In this message, Apathy was declared."
Gratuitous: In addition to Judge Gaelan's arguments in CFJ 3901, CFJ 2077, CFJ 2292, and 2633 all found that, based on common English usage (not specific rules text) that "acting on behalf of oneself" is the same as merely "acting". Which would mean it's not as protective as we think (i.e. it wouldn't block Y from "acting on X's behalf to perform something on behalf of emself" if there was a suitable contract to that effect) but it's basically the same as "a player CAN act to do X". With several cases saying the same thing, it's to-date been a fairly consistent reading based on common language, not specific rules-text (albeit with the current rules clearly showing a legislative intent to give the term a different context). https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2077 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2292 (most specific analysis) https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2633 -G.
