On Tue, 23 Dec 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Didn't we figure this particular one out back in that first CFJ >> on whether this was possible? -G. > > CFJs can be decided wrongly. It's not in the best interests of the > game for players to act on behalf of others using a mechanism that > recordkeepors have no way of knowing about. Acting on behalf in > general being a matter of game custom is also fairly ridiculous.
This is worth considering in some detail. I personally didn't believe it possible without legislation, but then I found Zefram's judgement in CFJ 1719 to be extraordinarily thorough and convincing, I think it would take something of equal weight and thoroughness to contradict it; it has clearly not been considered to be against the general interests of the game, nor considered generally ridiculous, since that CFJ. Also, the act of using it makes it known, so the recordkeepor does know about it when it's used. I think it *is" necessary to confirm the relationship among all parties when it was previously unknown; e.g. in this case Murphy confirmed it immediately, so the burden on recordkeepors was trivial. Finally, you would impose a meaningless triviality of restriction. If you required such contracts to be public before use, I would create a private contract that gave someone permission to create a public contract that I pre-signed to then create the permission. -Goethe.
