Assuming this goes undisputed, I’ll assume that this interpretation is correct for my reports.
Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I doubt that this really does anything. Presumably, "one party" means "one > person who is a party"; there's no means by which a single person can be > multiple parties. > > On a related note, years ago, it was ruled that "I act on behalf of myself > to do X" means exactly the same thing as "I do X." > > Back then, there was no mechanism in the rules for one person to act on > behalf of another. Instead, if a person A said "I permit person B to act on > my behalf", and then person B sent a message saying "Person A does X", then > the way that this was treated is that Person A was considered to be the > author and the sender of that particular sentence, with Person B merely > relaying the message to the forum. > > —Warrigal, who is emself
