Murphy wrote: > In this case, at least, I think it's because the functions in > question (i.e. how many partners does Pineapple have left?) > directly impact the rule-defined gamestate (i.e. does Pineapple > still exist as a player?).
My question is, are these matters best dealt with in legislation or the courts? I'm leery of blanket legislation that's trivial to circumvent and thus give us false sense of security based on what is really just a bureaucratic headache; e.g. requirements that agreements be constantly monitored and changes reported to the "Notary" just invites shadow-agreements and shadow-shadow agreements while we think the blanket of security is doing its job. On the other hand, the your CFJ on the matter is perfectly legitimate; an Order that the PP reveal a specific and focused piece of its internal correspondance that has a direct bearing on the Rules is quite reasonable (though it might not be in other circumstances; for example, if there were known multiple members, and the very existence of the PP didn't hinge on me quitting, a judge might find it that there is sufficient evidence that the PP exists even without a full membership list). > Zefram's interpretation in CFJ 1623 was that a partnership must > assign rights and obligations to the partners. This could be > extended by interpreting that anyone assigned rights and obligations, > even indirectly, is a partner. Exactly the kind of thing a judge could sort out currently (without changing the rules). The point being that adding the legislation doesn't make it easier to do. -Goethe
