On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:39 AM ais523 via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 07:28 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:02 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I CFJ: "In this message, Apathy was declared." > > > > Gratuitous: > > > > In addition to Judge Gaelan's arguments in CFJ 3901, CFJ 2077, CFJ > > 2292, and 2633 all found that, based on common English usage (not > > specific rules text) that "acting on behalf of oneself" is the same > > as merely "acting". Which would mean it's not as protective as we > > think (i.e. it wouldn't block Y from "acting on X's behalf to perform > > something on behalf of emself" if there was a suitable contract to > > that effect) but it's basically the same as "a player CAN act to do > > X". > > Gratuitous: I (perhaps naively) thought that the only sensible > interpretation of "acting on eir own behalf" was as a synonym for > "acting as emself" (used five times in the rules at present), which in > turn was a synonym for "in a message e sent, not in a message for which > someone else was acting on eir behalf". As such, I'm a little surprised > that CFJs have found differently. (That said, neither of these > correspondences seems to be explicitly defined in the rules at the > moment.)
There's some history here - at the time of those earlier CFJs, I don't think "acting on eir own behalf" was actually in the rules anywhere. Rather, those CFJs were based on rules text that said "Player X CAN act on behalf of Player Y" and asked whether that text worked if circumstances led to X=Y. In the current ruleset, the more explicit appearance of "acting on eir own behalf" is clearly *intended* to be a synonym for/interchangeable with "acts as emself", so it's partially a question of whether that context shift changes the CFJ readings that were opined before that explicit rules text was enacted? -G.
