On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2097 >> >> ============================== CFJ 2097 ============================== >> >> The Executor of a message that contains a CFJ is also the >> Initiator of that CFJ, even if the Executor says E submits the >> CFJ on behalf of someone/something else >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller: Quazie >> >> Judge: woggle >> Judgement: >> >> ======================================================================== > > Proto-judgement: > > There is one case where the answer is clear. That is the case of a > partnership initiating an equity case for a contract it is not a party > to. In the case of a partnership structured like the PerlNomic > Partnership, it is not unlikely that the executor would not be > qualified to initiate that equity case and not be easy to determine. > As partnerships have long been recognized to have a right to act and > certainly should have the R101(iii) to resolve controversies > concerning a contract that have joined and given that the uncertainty > in determining the Executor would be disruptive not in the best > interest of the game. Therefore, I judge FALSE. > > 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. > Well, that's what I get for pressing send too early. *sigh*
So, anyways, the conclusion I wanted to get to was that because sending messages is an inherently complex process and we have in the past recognized automated messages on behalf of a person, 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. -woggle
