On Feb 5, 2008 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oop. Must have cut something out of the old rule that prevented that. > > Maybe the easiest thing is to combine these issues: leave N alone (get > rid of N+1) and disqualify the "first-class person who posts the intent, > or who posts the intent on behalf of a second-class person" from supporting. > > Cases where initiator and performer differ may be more complex. There > may have been another bug in the old rule: if the initiator and > performer differed, could one of them also be a supporter? Which one? > I'll have another look. I think the easiest way is to always disqualify > the initiator, cases where that could be abused should be suitably rare. > Why not just limit initiation of dependent actions to first-class persons only? We've taken away all the other advantages of partnerships, why keep this one?
BobTHJ
