ais523 wrote, in part: > I think "Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is > secured at power 2.0." (rule 2466), together with "A Rule that makes > change, action or value secured [...] thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to > perform that change or action" (rule 1688), is the clearest reason why > you can't take an action on behalf without specific rules permission > allowing you to.
Ah, thank you! Best, msh210
