On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe the power threshold for causing a message to be sent is 2. > My reasoning: it's established that a contract can allow other people > to act on behalf of its parties. As I understand it, this is implied > by the fact that if there were no such mechanisms, partnerships would > have no way to act. The rule defining partnerships is a power-2 rule. > Apart from the definition in Rule 478, "Fora", power 3, there is no > other way to send a message.
Acting on behalf of another entity is different than claiming you can cause an entity to send a message that's never actually sent and never reaches players via a public forum. A message is sent by a person with a computer actually sending it. Creating an in-game fiction of "messages" as abstract entities is unnecessary and probably dangerous. Besides, the PerlNomic Partnership proves that partnerships can actually send messages without anyone acting on their behalf. If partnerships' inability to send their own messages were the only thing allowing others to act on their behalf, I'd think PNP puts the mechanisms behind other partnerships' actions on shaky footing. I think some sort of legislative backing to acting on behalf would be great (mostly because I feel that relying heavily on game custom and precedent without explicit rules creates too much of a burden on players to actually know all of the game customs and precedents; ideally someone reading the text of the rules should have a complete picture of what is and isn't legal), but I'd rather not see it function by creating the fiction that a message published by one person was actually published by another.
