On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x. > > Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting. > > Thus partnerships can't do anything.
Umm... that is an absurd precedent. I don't know why I didn't support your attempt to appeal it. In particular, it directly contradicts the precedent of CFJs 1833-5, while citing an irrelevant precedent that deals with one person *becoming* another, rather than just acting on behalf of em. Not to mention that partnerships' R101 rights would be infringed if they couldn't do anything. In other words, although it's too late to appeal it, I think it would be wise to overturn that precedent as soon as possible.
