On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, the apparent real purpose of this CFJ is to overturn > act-on-behalf rights, which presently are primarily a matter of game > custom and judicial precedent. It would be injust to overturn this in > the case of partnerships as then the rule's definition of partnerships > as persons would be pretty useless. The more interesting case, of > course, is that of first-class persons. > > Sending messages is a complex process. We have, in the past, > recognized automated messages on behalf of a person, which is > certainly more extreme than delegated authority. And, really, there's > no reason to require a very strong and direct connection between the > act of sending a message and its sender. Indeed, most people could > easily setup technical means for forwarding messages such that we > could not tell if e sent or if someone acting on eir behalf sent it. > > Now, the game protects itself against uncertainty in this way by > trusting a message's claim of who sent it (the Who > am I? rule). I do not think it is in the best interest of the game to > disallow people from doing this "delegation" manually, when clearly it > is technically possible. We can reasonably read a contract granting > authorization to act on behalf of someone as a promise not to > challenge the identity of (sub)messages matching that criteria in this > sense.
I guess I do agree that if I agree to a contract letting people act on my behalf, they should be able to do so; I don't believe that it should be possible to amend a contract to allow acting on a person's behalf without that person's explicit, specific consent. So, I'm conceding that I'm not a player. Woo-hoo. --Ivan Hope TTPF
