On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>
> > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
> > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
> > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.
>
> It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule 2124 to imply
> you cannot support on someone's behalf.
I agree on that reading - fascinating - and it even makes reasonable sense
to allow objections but not support (because objections aim to keep the
status quo that the zombie has already "consented" to).
> Rule 2519/0 (Power=3.0)
> Consent
>
> A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
> as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. This
> agreement may be implied, but only if it is reasonably clear from
> context that the person wanted the agreement to take place.
>
> Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0)
> Agoran Satisfaction
>
> A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
> publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
> an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a
> dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
> (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
> perform the action.
>
> [...]
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
