On 1/7/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, that constitutes the same judge reiterating eir own arguments which > may have been based on a false premise. This is not "confirmation". > -Goethe
And yet it wasn't appealed. Blatantly disregarding precedent is not game custom. Anyway, at the moment, the following are generally held true: * cron jobs are allowed to act on behalf of first-class players * first-class players are allowed to act on behalf of partnerships These are both similar situations that happen in the present. The first is not regulated, and the second was considered possible even when partnerships were not regulated. Additionally, contracts like: X may act on behalf of the partnership by announcement only if Z are permissible, suggesting that the power of a contract generally to cause actions. Finally, Rule 1742 was created after the creation of Executors, and has been modified substantially since its repeal. If it does not implicitly allow players to act on behalf of others when a contract exists allowing them to, such an ability ought to be legislated-- contracts are much more flexible than Executors, since they can only allow actions in limited situations, and therefore are not only useful for inactive players.
