On Tuesday 15 July 2008 01:25:39 pm Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we
> > should instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and
> > "artificial persons", and have R101 assign rights only to the
> > nat
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't that what "first-class" is for?
More or less. The purpose of "first-class" was to restrict abilities,
not rights, but there's no reason they couldn't be conflated into the
same thing.
-root
2008/7/15 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
>>> rights,
>>> and thus partnerships wouldn't.
>>
>> Do you even
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
>> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
>> rights,
>> and thus partnerships wouldn't.
>
> Do you even read the ruleset? R2145.
I presume ehird is
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> No, doer vs non-doer would not be a question of rights. Only people have
> rights,
> and thus partnerships wouldn't.
Do you even read the ruleset? R2145.
I suppose one could make the argument that R101 applies to "natural"
persons only and so superse
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>>
>>> They are if they're public and have a basis of
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the very act of doing that removes the rights of them as persons,
> which is against R101, does a change to R101 have to comply with R101?
Not if a temporory Power-3.1 rule allows otherwise.
-root
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
>> instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial
>> persons", and have R101 assign rights only
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>>
>>> They are if they're public and have a basis o
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah. I would suggest that, in keeping with legal practice we should
> instead split "persons" into "natural persons" and "artificial
> persons", and have R101 assign rights only to the natural variety.
>
> -root
>
Yes. This is essentially what I was sugge
2008/7/15 Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But you can't un-people them without reducing eir rights. So even if
> its wrong, its something we can't just change.
>
We can make it so that future partnerships are doers, but not people.
And a powerful proposal can de-person the existing ones.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>
>> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
>> the only ones that we've decided we want to have i
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>>
>> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
>> the only ones that we've decided we want to have i
2008/7/15 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The problem is that partnerships aren't people.
>
> They are if they're public and have a basis of at least two, which are
> the only ones that we've decided we want to have interacting with the
> game (and with good reason). Unless Goethe is right, in w
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Elliott Hird
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> This makes something occur to me. Once an entity (a partnership) is
>> defined as a person, is it even possible, without violating R101, to make
>> them a non-person? At one s
2008/7/15 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This makes something occur to me. Once an entity (a partnership) is
> defined as a person, is it even possible, without violating R101, to make
> them a non-person? At one stroke, by doing so, we've removed rights
> that (the instant before the change
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I currently disagree with the judgement in CFJ 1695, and it was my own
> judgement. It has since occurred to me that if partnerships could not
> perform actions via the forum, then they were not players to begin
> with and therefore had no R101 right to par
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I tell my secretary to type something and press send, e will use my
> email address and put my name on it; e will have sent it, but I will
> have written it and consented to its being sent under my name. The
> rules say that the
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, ihope wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a
>> speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly
>> saying that we are acting on behalf of ou
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> By the way, I would like to point out that in Goethe's situation it
> might indeed be argued that the time of the action is in fact when
> _Goethe's_ action leaves _Goethe's_ TDoC.
It depends on whether, even theoretically, the agreement in question
allows m
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I intend to test the above but, instead of a secretary I will have a
> friend send a message though my e-mail account, registering emself.
I think that this would be similar to CFJ 1719. However, if you asked
your friend to perf
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
>> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
>> This does not apply in
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It's a good thing we ratify things.
>>
>> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
>> infring
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
> This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting on
> behalf of each other, which
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> 2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a
>> speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly
>> saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledg
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff,
> especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
The difference comes when we insert a second decision-making entity
(e.g. a thinking person with a technical domain of control and act
On Monday 14 July 2008 02:29:45 pm comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that
> > stuff, especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
>
> In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from dele
2008/7/14 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For the current case, I think "I act on behalf of myself" is what a
> speech act is by definition; whenever we say "I do X" we are implicitly
> saying that we are acting on behalf of ourselves. So the pledge is
> a tautology, "I act on behalf of myself
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's a good thing we ratify things.
>
> In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
> infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
> This does not ap
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not really that much of a stretch to let contracts do that stuff,
> especially considering the analogy with partnerships.
In fact, if I'm blind, preventing me from delegating the
responsibility to use email clients to a secre
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a good thing we ratify things.
In CFJ 1695, it was ruled that not allowing partnerships to act
infringes the right of participation in the fora of the partnership.
This does not apply in the case of first-class players acting
2008/7/14 ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I agree to the following: {This is a pledge. Ivan Hope CXXVII can act
> on behalf of himself by announcement. Ivan Hope CXXVII can terminate
> this contract by announcement.}
You call this an ehird moment? Well, it starts the same, except I'd end up
deregiste
32 matches
Mail list logo
