On Feb 6, 2008 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That of course was my first thought, but then I thought that there may be > trivial dependent things that it's perfectly reasonable and convenient for > the AFO (or someone else) to be able to do. General opinions all around, > based on the current ruleset? Anyone have examples of dependent actions > we should keep available to second-class persons?
If the Ambassador or Registrar were to be a second-class person, then the powers of those offices that can only be done dependently could be affected. A partnership that is a Senator but which contains non-Senator members might want to call an Emergency Session, but I'd argue that no longer allowing a non-Senator partner to take this action would be a feature, not a bug. The only other instance I can think of is one where a partnership has non-Player partners who can't perform dependent actions on their own but currently could do so through their partnership. I'm perfectly comfortable with telling such people that they should register if they want to perform those actions, or amend their partnership agreement such that they can create an obligation for a first-class Player/Partner to take those actions when it would make sense to do so. Of course, a partnership consisting entirely of non-Players wouldn't have the second option, but again I'm comfortable with limiting partnerships of foreign invaders who don't wish to become Players themselves. --Wooble
