On 5/2/24 01:39, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 5/1/24 13:19, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
I intend to award Employee of the Year to snail and Janet.
>>> I object, sorry. I think these need to be phrased as separate intents.
>>>
>> I don't think that's true. The rule text says awardable to "the
>> persons", plural. Nothing indicates it cannot be awarded to multiple
>> people, and overall patent titles can belong to entities (and the joint
>> of two players is still an entity). The semantic difference is whether
>> there's one title jointly awarded to both of you (which I think this
>> implies), or two separate titles for each of you.
>
>
> It's certainly possible to do, but I don't think we have previously had
> a patent title being (deliberately) awarded to a set of persons (under
> the legal definition, so excluding the instance with BC System), and I
> don't think we should start. At the very least, it'd likely cause
> confusion in the Herald's report?
>
> In any event, I don't think the intent specifies that clearly enough to
> meet the tabled action standard.
>
Joint awards are a normal thing in real life, and the announcement would
be pretty much identical to that intent. I really don't see any
specificity issue.
Whether you think it *should* be done this way is a separate question of
whether it works (which I see no rule reason to doubt).
--
nix
Arbitor, Spendor
