2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> The problem is that partnerships aren't people. > > They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are > the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the > game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in which case > the "public" requirement failed to take effect.
But partnerships _aren't people_. I'm saying our current definition is wrong. >> We need 'doers', which are like people+partnerships. And most occurences >> of 'person' replaced with 'doer' in the rules, and players be a subset of >> doers. > > I don't see how this solves the problem Goethe describes. Redefining > a player as either a non-person or a non-doer would still remove some > of that player's rights. > > -root > No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have rights, and thus partnerships wouldn't.
