On 5/9/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The power to perform what action?
*An* action, just as I wrote.
[snip some comments]
From some of your comments I get the (distinct, but perhaps incorrect)
impression that you believe that I use ``protoproposal'' as a synonym
for ``final draft''.
I don't.
Since Kolja is gone, I may be the last of the slow players.
One of my current protos has been in (admittedly not continuous)
development for nearly two years.
The ruleset will be completely different by the time I get around to
proposing this, so just let me have my fun, okay?
> Whenever one entity gains executorship of another entity, each
> executor of the former entity simultaneously gains executorship
> of each executee of the latter entity.
Isn't this implied by the transitivity requirement?
Some may think so; others may not. That's why I included the comment
[This translates transitivity into temporal terms.]
just above the rule you quoted. I don't think it hurts to include
redundancy in the rules, especially consequences that might not be
obvious for people who don't think about binary relations all the
time, or who don't believe that static properties of binary relations
apply to dynamic legal relations.
Too many cases turn on interpretation of irredundant writing.
The partnerships define their own means for the partners to act on
their behalf. Don't need executorships for this.
You can't use extra-Agoran means to define ways to perform actions
within Agora. You can only use extra-Agoran means to define ways to
attempt to perform actions within Agora; you need a friend on the
inside for them to work.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Write something up. Anything!
-- Sherlock, in agora-discussion
