Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R2170 already defines "Executor" (as "the first-class person who sends > it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent"). Going > back to "Grantor" and "Holder" would work. (History lesson: the rules > used to explicitly allow granting power of attorney, then it was > repealed during a period of mass simplification, then someone tried it > via contract and we decided that that worked.) By the way, if we're going to make power of attorney explicit, we should learn from Rule 2170-- not all executorships are now nor should be announcements that I act on behalf of you. When Googlebot causes PNP to send a message, there are several different first-class persons about equally likely to have most directly caused the message to be sent, none of which really match what an Executor is supposed to be. We could force Executors to be explicit, but I think it would be better to just not use the concept, so we can let the PNP live naturally as a robot, instead of forcing it into the mold of a traditional partnership.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
Goethe wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that >> "X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the >> one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter. > > How about, er, "Power of Attorney"? "Grantor", "Holder", and > "Executor" are nice terms to consider. -Goethe R2170 already defines "Executor" (as "the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent"). Going back to "Grantor" and "Holder" would work. (History lesson: the rules used to explicitly allow granting power of attorney, then it was repealed during a period of mass simplification, then someone tried it via contract and we decided that that worked.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this > rule is repealed. Why not a rule that allows late appeals with a higher support number (or Agoran Consent, would need that to get this passed anyway). -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that > "X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the > one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter. How about, er, "Power of Attorney"? "Grantor", "Holder", and "Executor" are nice terms to consider. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 11:03:13 pm Ed Murphy wrote: > define some useful label for X's role in the matter. "Executor"
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote:
> Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
> {{
> comex is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
>
Oh this is horrid and unneeded though I agree with the arguments.
Just CFJ again, there's no reason a new CFJ can't go against
precedent (as long as it brings up the precedent and says why it
is Wrong). -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
woggle wrote:
> Proposal: Overturn CFJ 2050
> {{
> comex is a co-author of this proposal.
>
> Set the judgment on the question of veracity in CFJ 2050 to TRUE.
This isn't strictly needed. From Rule 591:
The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play
(including future judgements), but do not directly affect the
veracity of the statement.
However, to get the formal record updated, it would be cleaner to
allow a late appeal, e.g. create a rule with this text:
Any player CAN appeal CFJ 2050 by announcement, upon which this
rule is repealed.
Rule 2170 (Who Am I?) should probably also be amended to state that
"X CAN act on behalf of Y" constitutes a legal fiction that Y is the
one acting, and define some useful label for X's role in the matter.
