On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > Deb & Bob were a player in 1993, which (I believe) predates > executorship by about 2 years and power of attorney by about 5 years.
Which means it's less relevant to the present day. We've had a period where they were not regulated (apparently, I don't know the rules from back then), and a period where they were strongly regulated. The current climate may inherent from either period. > Partnerships don't have formal executors, but nobody seems to be > disputing that they function without them. I dispute that. Requiring partnerships to explicitly devolve requirements to act (R2145) formalizes the executorship to some extent. > CFJ 1303 doesn't seem relevant to me, as it is concerned with the senders > of messages rather than the effectiveness of actions. Fair enough. > Rule 2160 provides a way for players to act in place of offices, not > persons. The fact that it exists implies that without it, a person cannot act for another person who happens to be an officer. I realize this is an indirect implication. The question is, in the absence of explicit regulation, does a "right" exist for you to sign away all your rights of refusal to act exist, or is it better for the game to refuse to recognize such a sign-away as binding (many bodies of law do not recognize signing yourself into slavery, for example). I also note that standards may differ for a long-time player who publicly signed away eir rights (e.g. Peekee) versus someone who has never posted and it is not clear that they "understand" what they have signed away. Which is why I've requested some direct evidence from Steve Wallace. -Goethe
