On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By CFJ 2050 doing x on behalf of another player is really just you doing x.
>>
>> Thus if I make a partnership vote on something, it is really me voting.
>>
>> Thus partnerships can't do anything.
>
> I disagree with this analysis of my judgment. If you cast votes on
> behalf of a partnership, yes, it's you casting the votes, but you're
> casting the partnership's votes and doing so in a manner that we
> recognize as causing them to be effective. Note that Rule 591 says a
> ruling a TRUE means the statement in question is "factually and
> logically true"; legal fictions are, qua fictions, not fact.
It's actually a little deeper, and maybe difficult for voting. When
you do something on behalf of yourself by announcement:
1. You are sending a message.
2. You are publishing a set of words (a statement).
3. The statement is your Act (a "speech act").
4. You are doing something (casting a vote).
5. The votes that are cast are yours (applied against your VP etc).
In cases where you deputize for another entity, the question is at what
stage in #1-#5 do we draw the line between what you are doing and
what the Other Entity is deemed (fictionally) to have done.
1. It is still you sending the message by CFJs 1895/1303 (ignoring
PNP-type auto messages as a different issue).
2. By CFJ 1303 and 1895, the statement publisher = statement sender
and remains you (the physical sender of the message), even when you
act on behalf of someone else.
------dividing line here ------------
3. For CFJ 1791 to work, we must accept the legal fiction that the
announcement was the Other's "action".
4. CFJ 2050 claims that it falls on the side of you doing the casting,
not the Other. But it is not legal for you to cast another's votes,
so that would be in conflict with CFJ 1791. IMO CFJ1791 is more
compelling.
5. The votes that are (attempted to be) cast are the Others' [generally
allowed by CFJ 1791, and if not, there is-I believe-some precedent I
can't find that if it fails, it just fails, and doesn't magically
become assumed to have been your votes].
However, there's a blurring here, particularly for voting. Voting
isn't *necessarily* a transmuted speech act, R683:
An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
indicating which one of the available options e selects.
So this blurs together #2 and #3 (the dividing line) in a less-than
clear way.
Thoughts? -Goethe
