On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It's a good thing we ratify things. >> >> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act >> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. >> This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on >> behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. >> Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a >> while. > > What don't I like about that precedent? It looks ok to me though I > didn't think it that it extended to allowing one person to "be" > another, just act on behalf of another. Zefram did the best job > laying out the case in CFJ 1719. Though I'll say that the invocation > of R101 in CFJ 1695 addressed broad, categorical bans not narrow and > more limited restrictions.
I currently disagree with the judgement in CFJ 1695, and it was my own judgement. It has since occurred to me that if partnerships could not perform actions via the forum, then they were not players to begin with and therefore had no R101 right to participation in the fora. However, one could argue that the status quo at the time the question was raised was that partnerships were considered players, and so the R101 rights of players should have been presumed to hold for them in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, and from that viewpoint the judgement was still correct. -root
