On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. > > Restricted ownership of Rests.
This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though perhaps too powerful an option. But I wouldn't support this with current partnerships entrenched as they are in offices, etc.--- I wouldn't vote to allow the Assessor and Distributor to suddenly be able to break every SHALL with relative impunity. If it's done with an entirely new class of second-class player/contract of which a handful are created (corporations with shares?), that's less harmful (maybe)? Though more work to create certainly. -Goethe
