On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a good thing we ratify things.
In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership. This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on behalf of each other, which is addressed in CFJs 1719 and 1833-5. Although some (Goethe) don't like that precedent, it has stood for a while. The situation is not as clear-cut as it looks in the rules, because humans don't send e-mail messages. Computers send them. I make up a suggested contract and you create it, I'm the author of the message, but you're definitely the one who performed it because you sent it. This applies even if you just agreed to send to the PF everything that I said, and possibly if you make a webform letting me send messages on your behalf in a webpage-- but this was ruled possible in CFJ 1719, especially considering the pragmatic argument that some official mail has always been partially authored and/or sent by computers (i.e. CotC notices). Then again, let's say the list receives a message purported to be sent by me, where I say I deregister. This might have bounced through a lot of SMTP servers before it got there, but you don't say that the SMTP server performed the action. Nor do you say my email client sent the message. But what if my "email client" is that you're my secretary, who types down what I say and presses send? Then I probably still sent the message. What if I'm standing in the room and I say "ok, you can send whatever you want as me"? You could argue that by CFJ 1685 the non-mindless nature of my secretary at that point makes the message really sent by em, but what if I say "you can copy that message from B and send it as me"? Even if I haven't read it? It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
