On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > > 3343: FALSE > > > > If any party's constitution actually authorized party members to act on > > its behalf, then such an inference would be valid. However, no party's > > constitution currently does so. > > > > I intend to appeal this judgment with 2 support, as I think that this > fails to adequately address the complex and nuanced ISIDTID arguments, > and in particular the amount of authority that the ruleset gives to a > Party constitution beyond that given by the rules.
I think from the early partnership days, there's a precedent that if an organization/contract is a player, then its text can authorize means of communication. It's limited to authorizing the "sending of messages", whether those messages then have legal effects is up to Agora. This may be, though, when second-class players had a Right to Participate in the Fora, so some mechanism had to be inferred for doing so. -G.
