On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 09:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I submit the following Proposal, "enough again already", AI-2: >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> [The PNP was the last partnership which seemed to justify >> partnerships existing. Now it is also compromised. When >> do we finally say enough of it?] >> >> Repeal Rule 2145 (Partnerships). >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Wouldn't this remove the R101 rights of pre-existing partnerships? As a > result, is it even possible?
I've wondered that since the first time a partnership ban was proposed, and have thought about arguments on both sides, but it has not been worth mooting IMO until a proposal attempting this is actually adopted. Worth noting is that there is no right to be a player; it's possible that partnerships would keep (for example) the "natural" right as a "natural" person to call CFJs or even (grandfathered in) participate in the fora, but not to register or stop from being deregistered. This would respect both R101 and the current proposal. -Goethe
