On 1/20/2019 10:19 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
> hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space
> Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about
> Rule 2519, which says:
> >
> >     A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e,acting
> >     as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.
> This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of
> someone else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that
> ability.

There's a history here (independent evolution of different protections)
but, given that R2466 comes before R2519 in precedence, I would parse the
net effect as "you can't send a message on behalf of someone else (R2466),
moreover even if you could do so, you couldn't use that to make the person
consent to something (R2519)."

Reply via email to