On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I'm not a partnership, of course; I can act in other ways. > 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? If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The rules say that the sender is the one who announces, so if I tell my secretary to type "I register" and press the send button, e will have registered. But I suppose I, in dictating it to my secretary, sent the message as well, so really, both of us will have registered, which is Weird. Of course, the Weirdness is probably moot, as I don't know of any players of Agora who use secretaries when sending messages to Agora. (If there are any of you, keep quiet.) Besides, there's likely some reasonable way to say that one or the other of us didn't actually send it. Now, if I say that someone else can send whatever they want as me, they are the only ones sending the messages; the only thing I've sent is "You can send whatever you want as me". So, if I ever say it, type it, write it, signal it, tap it, utter it, emboss it or engrave it, I've sent it; otherwise, no. > It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff, > especially considering the analogy with partnerships. R101 only gives partnerships the right to participate in the fora, not arbitrary contracts, and first-class players already have a way to act, so their R101 right does not allow things to send messages on their behalf. On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. "Using the mechanism defined in the above pledge, I act on behalf of myself to deregister" is only a synonym of "I deregister" if the pledge allowed me to act on behalf of myself, regardless of whether or not I could have acted on behalf of myself anyway. Please don't be a jerk and rule that contracts can allow people to act on behalf of themselves but nobody else. :-P On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We do now in some non-obvious ways. For example, I send you a message > authorizing and requiring you (via mutual contract) to do something on > my behalf. You then send a message to Agora on my behalf. Unlike the > situation when it bounces between machines, the time of action is > (arguably! this isn't tested!) when it leaves your TDOC for the forum, > not when it leaves my TDOC for yours. Now, that's an interesting case, if I write a message, send it to you, and have you send it to the public forum. One could say that I send it to the public forum once it leaves my mailbox or I click send or I finish speaking or whatever, and then you send it again when you get it to the public forum. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
