On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-04-14 at 00:33 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> Defendant Rule 2361 informed: 10 Apr 2013 05:42:52 GMT > > > > CFJ: Rule 2361 has been informed of CFJ 3301. > > > > Arguments: Unlike partnerships and golems and the like, which can > > reasonably be informed of things via informing the persons capable of > > taking control of them, it's not entirely clear whether concepts like > > rules and completely emancipated golems can be informed of anything, > > being both legal fictions and inanimate objects. > > More arguments: the FLR says that by CFJ 1702, "A requirement to > submit something to an officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if > that office is vacant at the time." It seems reasonable to extrapolate > this to saying that a requirement to submit something to any Agoran > legal fiction is satisfied by publishing it.
It's a more philosophical question on whether a non first-class entity can know something in terms of criminal rights/ protections. (given that knowledge is not defined explicitly by the rules so we rely on common definitions - of course we could legislate it, but I don't know that it's necessarily a "reasonable extrapolation" without said legislation). This is different from CFJ 1702 in that there is a specific entity in question which may be (by common definition) incapable of knowledge.
