On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ed Murphy wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2496 >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2497 >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2498 > > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal these judgments, as R2170's last > paragraph, combinined with R478, need to be read into very strongly to > believe that an announcement could have a different executor than the > message containing it, and thus that two players could take actions in > the same message. Note that the PNP's vote messages say that the actions > are taken on behalf of the PNP; while it's not clear who the executor > is, it is clear they are authorized to cause the PNP to perform them by > virtue of the fact that the message was sent from the PNP. >
I support. This was the real intent of the CFJs, and I don't think it was properly addressed. If i do something on behalf of hp2 in a message, i'm still doing it. gwen and I have attempted to each do something ourselves in one message, which may or may not have worked.
