On Monday 07 January 2008 14:41:07 Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> ============================== CFJ 1856 ============================== > >> Statement: Steve Wallace is a player > >> ======================================================================== > > Proto-argument, while awaiting evidence: > > Assuming that evidence is produced of the existence of Steve Wallace, > and of a contract between Steve Wallace and pikhq, then: > > In claiming to register on behalf of Steve Wallace, there are two > possibilities. > > The first is that "Steve Wallace's" joining amounts to a partnership > between pikhq and Steve Wallace, which is only true if the contract in > question devolves responsibility onto both parties. In this case, > "Steve Wallace" as an Agoran player is a partnership which registered > before public requirements (but is still a second-class person). So, > a qualified TRUE if the text of the contract supports the interaction > as a partnership. > > The currently-available evidence (awaiting further information from the > parties) suggests that this is not the nature of the contract, however. > The other possibility is that the contract claims to authorize one first > class person (pikhq) to act "on behalf of" another first-class person > (Steve Wallace. This amounts to granting power-of-attorney or > executorship for Agoran actions between the two first-class persons. > > If this were possible between a player and non-player, it would be > possible between two players. However, such delegation is strongly > regulated. It had to be specifically allowed in the past (reference: > past PoA and executorship rules) and currently is specifically allowed only > in limited and highly specialized circumstances (R2160). The courts have > in the past imposed strict limits on its application (e.g. CFJ 1303). > > Therefore, I find that current Agoran rules do *not* recognize a general > Power of Attorney or other form of executorship signed outside the game, > or even within the game, to apply to Agoran matters, and with the > absence of explicit Rules-based permission under implicitly-strong > regulation and limitation, pikhq cannot act, specifically to register, on > Steve Wallace's behalf. If Steve Wallace is a first-class person (and not > a partnership), e is not a Player. FALSE. > > -Goethe
The contract was "Steve Wallace allows pikhq to act on his behalf." Such contracts have fairly firm precedent in support of them(CFJ 1719), and are by no means regulated. Since this has been explicitly allowed without rule-based regulation in the past, then in this case it must now be allowed.
