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 participation in the fora. > > However, one could argue that the status quo at the time the question > was raised was that partnerships were considered players, and so the > R101 rights of players should have been presumed to hold for them in > the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, and from that viewpoint > the judgement was still correct.
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 takes effect) we're not permitted to remove. It may be possible to change the rules so that no new partnerships can be defined as persons (because non-existing partnerships aren't persons yet) but can we get rid of the previous ones in any way? Similarly, can we amend R101 in a manner that reduces a current right? (It's always possible to make a power-4 rule temporarily to allow it, I'm talking about doing the reduction through a straightforward amendment). -Goethe
