On Jan 8, 2008 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > Had he not already passed away, I would register on behalf of my late grandfather. Due to severe cancer he was no longer able to exercise his independent will and I was granted authority to act on his behalf.
BobTHJ
