On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
But you can't un-people them without reducing eir rights. So even if its wrong, its something we can't just change.
