On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> This makes something occur to me. Once an entity (a partnership) is >> defined as a person, is it even possible, without violating R101, to make >> them a non-person? At one stroke, by doing so, we've removed rights >> that (the instant before the change takes effect) we're not permitted >> to remove. It may be possible to change the rules so that no new >> partnerships can be defined as persons (because non-existing partnerships >> aren't persons yet) but can we get rid of the previous ones in any way? >> >> Similarly, can we amend R101 in a manner that reduces a current right? >> (It's always possible to make a power-4 rule temporarily to allow it, >> I'm talking about doing the reduction through a straightforward >> amendment). > > The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in which case the "public" requirement failed to take effect. > We need 'doers', which are like people+partnerships. And most occurences > of 'person' replaced with 'doer' in the rules, and players be a subset of > doers. I don't see how this solves the problem Goethe describes. Redefining a player as either a non-person or a non-doer would still remove some of that player's rights. -root
