Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Sean Hunt wrote: >>> Proposal 6397 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by Pavitra >>> Support Diplomacy >> AGAINST, this defeats the purpose of the rule in the first place. > Not really. The purpose of the rule in the first place is to prevent > arbitrary creation of corporate persons by too few natural-person > individuals. The requirement that those individuals be active players is > a relatively recent amendment to the pre-existing rule. > > If you have something specifically against inactives, and this proposal > fails, I'll draft something to make activity orthogonal to citizenship.
No, it's not. The purpose is to prevent a partnership from being formed with several players, then all but one go inactive, essentially rendering it from being a partnership to a shill.
