On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:59 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:36 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> >> Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only
> >> requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine
> >> whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not,
> >> but this will set some interesting precedent either way).
> > Interesting point; I don't think act-on-behalf via non-contract consent
> > has ever been established by a CFJ, and had assumed it didn't exist. As
> > act-on-behalf is based on game custom anyway, this could make for a very
> > interesting CFJ.
> >
> > I initiate an inquiry CFJ with II 2 into the statement {{If a player
> > gives consent for other players to act on eir behalf without creating or
> > modifying a contract for the purpose, such consent actually does allow
> > those players to act on eir behalf.}}
> >
> > Arguments:
> > I don't think there's any precedent or rules basis for this, but I might
> > be wrong.
>
> CFJ 1719.
>
Hmm... I'd actually be partial to a legislative attempt to overturn that
CFJ (by clarifying the rules so that it would be given the opposite
result). Probably that's more evidence that judges should be able to
choose positive/negative on every judgement with my new proto,
regardless of if it matches the judgement.
--
ais523
