Goethe wrote:
Murphy wrote:If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible after its membership changes, it shall announce which players have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied if the information is published by a member of the agreement, or a person who was a member immediately before the change.It's interesting to watch the pull for regulation vs. privacy (silent partnerships always being an obsession of mine, this is third time I've tried to allow one). We ask for more regulation of these unfamiliar relationships than of personhood (e.g. we don't require an ID check of players to prevent Annabel-like issues). Also, rules like the above ignore the fact that they are trivial to get around at need. For example, the Registered Agreement could defer to a second, non-registered agreement as its governing council... anyone recall the UNDEAD?
Zefram's interpretation in CFJ 1623 was that a partnership must assign rights and obligations to the partners. This could be extended by interpreting that anyone assigned rights and obligations, even indirectly, is a partner.
In general Agorans seem to dislike, and feel the need to regulate, substructure (e.g. subgroups) rather than allowing functions of them to be privitized, and therefore subject to some degree of confidentiality (which would be breakable only if squabbles between members came to light). I'm not sure what drives that, it tends to make subgroups more unregulated, not less, as it relegates them to true scams and the like.
In this case, at least, I think it's because the functions in question (i.e. how many partners does Pineapple have left?) directly impact the rule-defined gamestate (i.e. does Pineapple still exist as a player?). Second-System Effect will address this issue from a different angle.
