On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote: > 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.
What don't I like about that precedent? It looks ok to me though I didn't think it that it extended to allowing one person to "be" another, just act on behalf of another. Zefram did the best job laying out the case in CFJ 1719. Though I'll say that the invocation of R101 in CFJ 1695 addressed broad, categorical bans not narrow and more limited restrictions. For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself to do X" simplifies to "I do X" and the deregistration worked. -Goethe
