On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097 >>> >>> ============================== CFJ 2097 ============================== >>> >>> The Executor of a message that contains a CFJ is also the >>> Initiator of that CFJ, even if the Executor says E submits the >>> CFJ on behalf of someone/something else >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> >>> Caller: Quazie >>> >>> Judge: woggle >>> Judgement: >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> Proto-judgement: >> >> There is one case where the answer is clear. That is the case of a >> partnership initiating an equity case for a contract it is not a party >> to. In the case of a partnership structured like the PerlNomic >> Partnership, it is not unlikely that the executor would not be >> qualified to initiate that equity case and not be easy to determine. >> As partnerships have long been recognized to have a right to act and >> certainly should have the R101(iii) to resolve controversies >> concerning a contract that have joined and given that the uncertainty >> in determining the Executor would be disruptive not in the best >> interest of the game. Therefore, I judge FALSE. >> >> Now, the apparent real purpose of this CFJ is to overturn >> act-on-behalf rights, which presently are primarily a matter of game >> custom and judicial precedent. It would be injust to overturn this in >> the case of partnerships as then the rule's definition of partnerships >> as persons would be pretty useless. The more interesting case, of >> course, is that of first-class persons. >> > Well, that's what I get for pressing send too early. *sigh* > > So, anyways, the conclusion I wanted to get to was that because sending > messages is an inherently complex process and we have in the past recognized > automated messages on behalf of a person, there's no reason to require > a very strong > and direct connection between the act of sending a message and its > sender. Indeed, > most people could easily setup technical means for forwarding messages > such that we > could not tell if e sent or if someone acting on eir behalf sent it. > Now, the game protects > itself against uncertainty in this way by trusting a message's claim > of who sent it (the Who > am I? rule). I do not think it is in the best interest of the game to > disallow people from > doing this "delegation" manually, when clearly it is technically > possible. We can reasonably > read a contract granting authorization to act on behalf of someone as > a promise not to challenge > the identity of (sub)messages matching that criteria in this sense. > > -woggle >
In the PNP i believe that the PNP is indeed the Executor of its own messages, as it has an e-mail address set up specifically for it, and it sends its own messages. I see no reason that partnerships be treated differently than players, as a result I think that the precedent set in CFJ 2050 should be applied here, and that would imply a judgement of TRUE.
