On 9/21/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I call for judgement, barring Zefram, on the following linked statements: > * The judicial panel of Murphy, root, and Wooble is a person. > * The judicial panel of Murphy, root, and Wooble would be a person if > the hypothetical Rule in the evidence section were enacted. > > Evidence: > Hypothetical rule > In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were > a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every > player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged > Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding > agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question. > > The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima > facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and > privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to > be bound by the rules. > > Rule 2145/2 (Power=2) > Partnerships > > A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its > legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at > least two, collectively, is a partnership > ... > A partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a > person. > > Arguments: Especially if the proposal passes, but possibly by 2141 > otherwise, the rules (which define judicial panels) are, in fact, a > binding agreement governed by the rules. >
Gratuitous arguments: If the rules are a binding agreement, then they are a binding agreement between *all* players, not the subset Murphy, root, and Wooble. Rule 2157 must then be interpreted not as a binding agreement between Murphy, root, and Wooble, but as a binding agreement between all players that the panel of Murphy, root, and Wooble exists as an entity and creates certain legal obligations. The panel itself, however, is not an agreement any more than is Goethe's citizenship switch. -root
