Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
On 5/2/24 10:15, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > 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. I originally read, and still read, the intent as intending to award a separate title to each person. If you're reading it the other way (as a single title awarded to a set of persons), that suggests that the intent isn't unambiguous. > 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). Okay, that's fair. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
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. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Petitions [further attn. Promotor, Arbitor, Tailor, ADoP]
On 5/1/24 00:06, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 4/28/24 16:56, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: >> Janet wrote: >> >>> I petition the ADoP to solicit nominations for Employee of the Year 2023. >> 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. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
