Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
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. I disagree with this analysis of my judgment. If you cast votes on behalf of a partnership, yes, it's you casting the votes, but you're casting the partnership's votes and doing so in a manner that we recognize as causing them to be effective. Note that Rule 591 says a ruling a TRUE means the statement in question is factually and logically true; legal fictions are, qua fictions, not fact.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I mill 5 * 8, does that produce 7? Yes. BTW, It would probably be nice to have addition, subtraction, and multiplication tables in the AAA report too; it's not like they're significantly less obnoxious to figure out than division.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 2082a
2008/8/14 Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not sure I agree. UNAWARE isn't appropriate for claiming ignorance in all cases, in fact in many cases it's not appropriate; there was sufficient goings on that e was aware that e could be punished (when one wants to demonstrate an unjust law, one accepts the punishment to show it's unjust; that was my dance intent). Yes - but I was hoping that with your unjust demonstration, this could overturn the precedent. tusho
DIS: Re: BUS: Recusing myself
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recuse myself from all appeals panels, and lie down. You can't recuse yourself from a panel, only a judge can be recused and it's the panel itself that's the judge.
DIS: Re: agora-discussion digest, Vol 1 #2923 - 11 msgs
My message of deregistering apparently was not received. It is however in my sent e-mail. Hmmm... there might be something interesting in that. -cdm014
Re: DIS: Re: agora-discussion digest, Vol 1 #2923 - 11 msgs
cdm014 wrote: My message of deregistering apparently was not received. It is however in my sent e-mail. Hmmm... there might be something interesting in that. Shudder. Proto-proto: A judicial assignment's implicit claim of validity is self-ratifying.
Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: 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. I disagree with this analysis of my judgment. If you cast votes on behalf of a partnership, yes, it's you casting the votes, but you're casting the partnership's votes and doing so in a manner that we recognize as causing them to be effective. Note that Rule 591 says a ruling a TRUE means the statement in question is factually and logically true; legal fictions are, qua fictions, not fact. It's actually a little deeper, and maybe difficult for voting. When you do something on behalf of yourself by announcement: 1. You are sending a message. 2. You are publishing a set of words (a statement). 3. The statement is your Act (a speech act). 4. You are doing something (casting a vote). 5. The votes that are cast are yours (applied against your VP etc). In cases where you deputize for another entity, the question is at what stage in #1-#5 do we draw the line between what you are doing and what the Other Entity is deemed (fictionally) to have done. 1. It is still you sending the message by CFJs 1895/1303 (ignoring PNP-type auto messages as a different issue). 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you act on behalf of someone else. --dividing line here 3. For CFJ 1791 to work, we must accept the legal fiction that the announcement was the Other's action. 4. CFJ 2050 claims that it falls on the side of you doing the casting, not the Other. But it is not legal for you to cast another's votes, so that would be in conflict with CFJ 1791. IMO CFJ1791 is more compelling. 5. The votes that are (attempted to be) cast are the Others' [generally allowed by CFJ 1791, and if not, there is-I believe-some precedent I can't find that if it fails, it just fails, and doesn't magically become assumed to have been your votes]. However, there's a blurring here, particularly for voting. Voting isn't *necessarily* a transmuted speech act, R683: An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the available options e selects. So this blurs together #2 and #3 (the dividing line) in a less-than clear way. Thoughts? -Goethe
Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you act on behalf of someone else. --dividing line here 3. For CFJ 1791 to work, we must accept the legal fiction that the announcement was the Other's action. I assume you mean CFJ 1719, which I believe is somewhat invalidated by the passage of Rule 2170, which would, in my reading, allow someone in a similar situation as Peekee was then to simply make a CoE on the claimed identity of the sender. In any case, I think it's bad precedent; Peekee didn't, IIRC, explicitly authorize anyone to act on eir behalf; e simply provided a means to send messages that claimed to be from em. One could argue that by publishing your email address here you've given me the means to forge messages from you, and thus if I do so they should be taken to be published by you and to let me act on your behalf. I'd now be in violation of Rule 2170 for doing so, but really, the evidence against someone breaking that rule would, unless they were fairly inept, be pretty weak. In the age of webmail, tracing the actual sender of any message is practically impossible without an enforceable power of subpoena, and difficult even then.
Re: DIS: Partnershpis can't do anything anymore
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you act on behalf of someone else. --dividing line here 3. For CFJ 1791 to work, we must accept the legal fiction that the announcement was the Other's action. I assume you mean CFJ 1719, which I believe is somewhat invalidated by the passage of Rule 2170, which would, in my reading, allow someone in a similar situation as Peekee was then to simply make a CoE on the claimed identity of the sender. In any case, I think it's bad precedent; Peekee didn't, IIRC, explicitly authorize anyone to act on eir behalf; e simply provided a means to send messages that claimed to be from em. That's not the part of CFJ 1719 that's relevant here. The CFJ1719 arguments went to great lengths to show that the authorization is possible and legal if unquestionably given (e.g. if given through an email statement I hereby authorize you to...), which is what my above arguments are about. The only thing we're quibbling about here is questioning here is what constitutes authorization. It *additionally* stated that the web form was sufficient authorization, and I actually agree with you that I think Zefram's opinion was weak on that score. There was discussion at the time about various means of authorize, for example, if I gave you my account name and password did I therefore authorize... I think Zefram followed up that eir precedent was supposed to imply yes for such situations. One could argue that by publishing your email address here you've given me the means to forge messages from you, and thus if I do so they should be taken to be published by you and to let me act on your behalf. There's certainly a stretch between directly providing an interface and providing knowledge for producing something that is called a forgery. (e.g. that's like the old if I leave my door unlocked, stealing from me isn't a crime). I'd now be in violation of Rule 2170 for doing so, but really, the evidence against someone breaking that rule would, unless they were fairly inept, be pretty weak. In the age of webmail, tracing the actual sender of any message is practically impossible without an enforceable power of subpoena, and difficult even then. Again, we're talking about what R1719 says in cases where the intent of the grantor to give authorization is not disputed, but the ability of the grantor to make the authorization (and the Power of Attorney holder's ability to act on it) is in question. -Goethe
DIS: Re: Can't recuse myself? Try a panel of two..
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I make the following pledge:
{
This is a pledge, and a public contract. If I am on an appeals panel,
any member of an appeals panel that I'm on may, by announcement, act
on my behalf to cause me to support a decision in that appeals case.
This pledge terminates as soon as I am not on any appeals panels.
}
Eeep, I should have said with the consent of the other person in the
appeals panel or something.. too late to fix it now :/
