root wrote: > This seems to indicate that a partnership's obligations are only > enforceable to the extent that the partnership's members desire them > to be enforced. Any thoughts?
There are two distinct sets of obligations here. The first are the set of obligations that the partnership imposes on its members. Only partners have standing to bring these to court. These are disputes over the inner workings of the partnership. The second is the set of obligations that Agora imposes on Players. Agora may certainly punish "the partnership" for breaking the rules. What happens when "the partnership" its punished isn't contained in the rules, but I'd guess "the partnership" is required to be put in the chokey or whatever. An example of the two tiers: Zefram and root form a partnership, it registers as a player, and the partnership fails to perform some required action. Anyone may bring suit against the partnership, and the partnership as a whole is dinged. But only Zefram can then allege in court "hey, the partnership agreement stated that it was root's responsibility to do that for the partnership, so the punishment should apply to root." This double-tiering does create abuse potential, as a partnership can register for the purpose of doing illegal things, take "punishment", and then deregister (before someone tries, Steve's Bond Scam Contest did this one already, so it's old news). -Goethe
