On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, comex wrote: > 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.
You're right, I won't "blatantly disregard". If I reject it, it will be with careful reasoning as why it's important to do so. (The first draft opinion entirely forgot about those decisions, my fault). > 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 There is a difference between acting on behalf of a partnership (which is a creation of its partners with no "independent will"), and a first- class person acting on behalf of another first-class person who is capable of acting for themselves. The rules are silent on both, but "Modern western world custom" (of which this game is a part) endows the second with "natural rights" that the first (partnerships) don't have. This is sufficient difference to distinguish what we accept from partnerships from what we accept for contracts between natural persons. The issue of cron jobs is where Judge Zefram and I differ, and I'm considering both those judgments and my own initial thoughts carefully. -Goethe
