==============================  CFJ 1719  ==============================

    Peekee is a player.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by root:                         12 Aug 2007 03:59:56 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     12 Aug 2007 06:10:09 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 15 Aug 2007 15:47:59 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Peekee:

I did not send the message. Somebody sent it from my web form. I did not in
anyway instruct, or suggest to anybody to use the webform to send that
message.

========================================================================

Judge Zefram's Arguments:

This case is concerned with the message:

|Received: from ariddell by fripp.uk-noc.com with local (Exim 4.63)
|        (envelope-from <agora@peekee.co.uk>)
|        id 1IK4F4-00021j-Mr
|        for agora-business@agoranomic.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:35:50 +0100
|To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
|From: agora@peekee.co.uk
|Message-Id: <E1IK4F4-00021j-Mr@fripp.uk-noc.com>
|Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:35:50 +0100
|
|I DEREGISTER!

It has already been established that messages of this form are sent via
Peekee's public web form.  Peekee later commented on this particular
message:

|I did not send the message. Somebody sent it from my web form. I did
|not in anyway instruct, or suggest to anybody to use the webform to
|send that message.

These comments were made in a message with a different From: header which
is incompatible with it having been sent via the web form.  I therefore
take Peekee's comments at face value.

The primary question is who authored the message for the purposes of
the rules.  This matter is crucially dependent on the intent of the
involved parties in the use of the web form.

Peekee could perfectly well have set up a web-to-mail gateway in order
to be an alternative means of access to the public forum.  We would
expect that kind of system to accept an email address for the From:
line as well as message content.  Prior practice, specifically the role
of the Distributor in early Agora, is that in this case the author of
the message for legal purposes would generally be whoever decided to
enter the message into the web form.  It would be clear that Peekee was
not, and was not claiming to be, the author of the messages that e was
forwarding.  If the From: header were ever incorrect then this would be
a matter of forgery.  We would expect the purported author to repudiate
the message, and the true author (if e could be identified) might well
be in breach of rule 2149 due to the false claim regarding authorship.

This hypothetical gateway is not the situation that we are presently faced
with.  Messages entered into Peekee's web form are always mailed with the
From: header showing "agora@peekee.co.uk", which is Peekee's registered
email address, thus claiming to be from Peekee.  When e announced the
web form, Peekee commented, in response to a query about their purpose,
"but can you send emails as me?".  This indicates that Peekee intended
that messages sent via the web form would be effectively from em ("sent
as" em).

E has also not contradicted this intent in the present case.  E has
not repudiated the message in question, despite ample time and despite
acknowledging awareness of the message's existence and attributes.
E has described the factual circumstances around the sending of the
message, but not made any explicit claim regarding legal authorship
(other than the From: header of the message itself).

I find that Peekee's intent was that messages sent via eir web form,
and this message in particular, would qualify as having been authored by
em for game purposes.  Further, considering Peekee's comments regarding
intent and the discussion of an earlier message to the discussion forum,
it is presumable that the sender of the present message also intended that
it would qualify as having been authored by Peekee.  Despite a public
request, the sender has not come forward to comment on the situation,
so this natural presumption remains unchallenged.

The question therefore arises of whether Peekee has the capacity to
delegate the sending of messages on eir behalf to all users of eir
web form.  We do not have explicit rules concerning delegation, but
quite a bit of game custom.

We've always accepted messages being sent with some degree of automation
in their composition, and messages initiated by a cron job, as being
authored by the responsible person.  Often it's not even possible to
tell whether these kinds of automation have been applied, so attempting
to make a distinction would be impractical and contrary to the best
interests of the game.

Partnerships, as they currently exist, do not have the ability to email
directly on their own behalf.  They can act only through natural persons.
Each partnership has therefore had a clause empowering its members to
send email on its behalf under specified circumstances.  This, too, is a
delegation of message sending, which has been accepted without question.
A problem may occur if a member were ever to purport to send a message
on behalf of a partnership when it was not actually legal for em to
do so under the corporation's charter.  We can expect, as with plain
forgery, that the partnership would then repudiate the message.  We would
probably apply the corresponding principle of real-life corporate law,
and judge that an ultra vires message is voidable under some reasonable
circumstances.

We also have a historical instance of an informally-specified partnership.
The player Deb & Bob was composed of two natural persons, either of
which could send message's on the player's behalf.  This is a delegation
somewhat similar to the present partnership situation, except that the
two authorised senders presumably did not have to confer before either
sent a message on behalf of the player.  In that respect it is similar
to the present Peekee situation.

I find that the game custom is generally permissive in this respect.
It is entirely possible for one person to send a message on behalf of
the other.  This capability is not unlimited: no doubt the court will
insist on reasonable limits, such as it being clear on whose behalf a
message has been sent.  (It has been clear in every case mentioned.)

I find that Peekee does have the capacity to delegate eir message sending
to all-comers via a web form, and that the mechanics of the system e
has in place are reasonable for this purpose.  I therefore find that the
message in question was authored by Peekee, for the purposes of the rules.
Peekee thereby deregistered emself, so I judge FALSE.

========================================================================