On 3/1/26 1:33 AM, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
For the RTRW contest, I received the following following submissions:
Submission 0 from ais523:
As far as I can tell, the definition of "person" in rule 869 includes
corporations (which can originate ideas that are created by
discussion/committee of the people who make them up), and more notably,
probably includes Agora itself (which can also originate ideas that
way). I would, however, recommend against trying to register Agora to
itself (the problem that it can't send emails is fixable, but I am
worried how it would interact with the basis overlap rule).
I was thinking about this due to the brief discussion about Canada on
Discord recently. I think the key is that the definition requires "the
intent of forming a single person under this Rule" -- very few real-life
entities would qualify. Absent "under this Rule" I think it would be easier
to make the case that such entities are persons.
It might be better to take the passive voice out of R869 ("confederated" ->
"who confederate") to make it clearer that it's the entities themselves
confederating, not some external party. In other words, I shouldn't be able
to confederate some random other people together into a single person just
because *I* intend to do so under R869
An interesting side question: what if one or more individuals within the
entity want to secede/quit? Does that automatically spoil the entity's
ability to qualify as a person?
--
Mischief
Collar, Collector
Hat: sleeping cap
