I retract the below proposal and create _the following_ proposal I create the following proposal Title: Open Season II AI: 2 Text: Create a new power 2.0 rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are under Rule 217."
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is "Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is > secured at power 2.0." in the rules. Which my proposed rule doesn't > affect, actually. So I guess G. was ultimately correct. > > I create the following proposal > Title: Open Season on Acting on Behalf > AI: 2 > Text: Create a new rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text > "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way > the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These > agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are > under Rule 217." > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The contracts infrastructure does not forclose such an arraignment. I made >> a ruling when the Agencies infrastructure was in place to the effect that >> having an explicit way to do something didn't stop people from doing things >> an earlier implicit way. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:45 PM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as >>> a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure >>> forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it. >>> But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397 >>> (judged by you) and 1719 >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >>> >> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. >>> >> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about >>> >> anymore. So I'm making the following point. >>> > >>> > I wholly agree with you. But can we add in a very simple stub that >>> > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements >>> > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower >>> > that? >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
