On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Craig Daniel wrote: >> >> If a person has sufficient active volition to continue submitting the >> >> set of messages to the PF that eir houngan asks for... >> > >> > Ah, you're talking about a more general type of zombiehood than >> > the current promises. I agree, if a zombie gives a controller eir email >> > password, just not much to be done. See CFJ 1719. >> >> Right, these promises are merely an easy shortcut. There's no r101 >> right to take shortcuts anywhere just because getting there is >> possible. > > Promises are more than a shortcut. They are regulated and public > in action and provide legal protections for both parties. This is the > sort of thing we can tighten up significantly. > > If you went to your friend and said hey, give me your email I want to > send messages on your behalf, I bet you'd have a tougher sell.
I would actually contend that if I borrow a friend's account and purport to post from it, if I'm caught by the game my friend isn't acting. In this case, the promise system (which, I agree, is a lot more than just a shortcut) is being used by the zombies to not have to put in nearly so much effort to do their masters' bidding. But the right to choose to do somebody else's bidding to the extent that you are able to act is a necessary consequence of the right of forum participation, just one that's highly unlikely to be invoked if it takes consistent effort beyond single posts.
