On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > Noooo I was a second away from using my zombie to appoint myself speaker.
Ørjan offered a theory that zombies CANNOT support anything - while it hasn't been tested in court, I agree with it because of use of the word "consent" in R2124: > A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has > publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") To give consent, a person must "act as emself" (R2519): > A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting > as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action. It's not just a semantic trick based on an accidental double definition. I think it makes sense, in terms of persons offering willful agreement, that masters can't agree to agreement changes on behalf of zombies, but can object to them on their zombies' behalf (because objections prevent agreement-changes without consent).
