On Dec 14, 2007 2:23 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > R101 is worded (IMO) such that the change would not be blocked, but > non-first-class persons would be able to CFJ anyway, making the rule > broken.
Overruled, not broken. > Plus, I support partnerships' rights. :) If partnerships are "nerfed" to > uselessness, then > nobody will make them. I don't see what this has to do anything. The only ability partnerships would lose is the ability to initiate judgement on behalf of their bases so that the members of their bases are still eligible to judge. That is not a protected right or a legitimate use of partnerships. Alternative: continue to allow partnerships to initiate CFJs, thereby not creating conflict with R101. But make their entire bases inelegible to judge. > There ought to be advantages to being members of partnerships, but not so > numerous that you would make a silent partnership for yourself. Hence why > I oppose 5370 and 5371. They both patch little loopholes that make > partnerships worthwhile. > > But I seem to be in the minority with this opinion... I suppose you could > argue that the only advantages partnerships ought to have are those that > occur only when the members are in agreement, such as being able to more > efficiently spend VCs. Hmm... The advantage to being a party to a contract is the security granted by that contract. I've never supported granting players extra rights just for making contracts, which is effectively what partnerships do. -root
