On Mon, 5 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 11:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Question: > > > > Do we have a reasonably-established shorthand for Agency actions? > > Technically, I'm acting on behalf of Quazie here. Do I have to say > > that each time? > > Our old shorthand was "The AFO votes FOR on proposal 5707", etc., but > I'm far from certain that would work under modern rules
I think that depended on the AFO et al. being persons/players in their own right, rather than the AFO being a vehicle between two persons. The CFJ I happened to read (again, can't find!) was for act-on-behalf powers of attorney that predated contracts. People posted different ways: "On behalf of Quazie, I do X" versus "I cause Quazie to do X" and the CFJ basically said "this is semantically tricky but all of these are reasonably clear enough to work." > Perhaps we could encode that into the rules; you perform an action > by announcement by stating that you perform it, so you perform an > action-on-behalf by announcement by stating that someone else performs > it. Well, part of what I was hoping was that we could insert of the Agency in place of the act-on-behalf language. Since Agencies are the vehicle, and R2467 makes a point of saying you should refer to agencies via their acronym, I was wondering if we could make "I invoke the XXX Agency to do X" a legislated synonym for "I, as an Agent, cause the Head to do X as per the powers of the XXX Agency". (the disadvantage is that this requires recordkeepors to look up the Head to see who's actually recorded as doing the thing). > Actions which aren't by announcement, although rare, would need some > other wording. The main not-by-announcement action is publishing a > report. I'm not convinced "G. publishes the following report:" (an > attempt to make it into an action by announcement) works; as far as I > can tell, if I wrote that, I'd be publishing the report and simply > lying about who the publisher was. Didn't we have a version where, literally, the *only* thing we could do on behalf of each other was send messages (which might then *happen* to have a legal effect)?
