==============================  CFJ 1833  ==============================

    In this message, comex submitted a CFJ on the statement "I'm


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by omd:                          18 Dec 2007 20:38:42 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     19 Dec 2007 22:04:27 GMT
Judged TRUE by Zefram:                  20 Dec 2007 23:36:45 GMT


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

At the time that that CFJ might have been submitted, the AFO and comex
had a contract (which I take to be validly formed) which included the

      By joining this contract, comex authorizes the AFO to submit
      CFJs on eir behalf by announcement.

The question, then, is whether such authorisation gives the AFO the
capability that it purports to, to act on comex's behalf in limited
circumstances.  The judicial precedents to consider are CFJ 1695 and
CFJ 1719.

CFJ 1695 concerns a member of a partnership acting on behalf of the
partnership.  The judgement determined that this was possible, if
the mechanism is explicitly created by the partnership's contractual
provisions.  The judgement was based on a rights argument: to deny
a partnership this capability would deny em the right to participate
in the fora.  This argument is not directly applicable to the present
case, because comex clearly has the capability to participate in the
fora directly.  Indeed, for an entity to qualify as a first-class person
it is required to be able to communicate by email, so this rights issue
categorically cannot arise with a non-partnership player.

CFJ 1719 concerns one first-class player acting on behalf of another
first-class player, by means of a web interface that can be used by
one person to send email with authorial markings referring to the other.
The judgement found that this was permitted.  The argument finds in favour
of a fairly general acceptance of delegation of message sending, referring
to precedents of cron-based automation, Deb & Bob, and partnerships.
It does not set out specific limits for the acceptability of delegation.

CFJ 1719's argument suggests that it is acceptable in principle for
the AFO to act on behalf of comex, where authorised, provided that the
mechanism used is reasonable.  The specific mechanism in this case, of
the AFO announcing that it is acting on behalf of comex while announcing
an action, is eminently reasonable, particularly because it is very clear
about what is happening.  It is a mechanism with which we have a great
deal of experience, being the only (visible part of) mechanism used by
partnerships so far.

I therefore find that this type of delegation works, and so comex
(via the AFO (via comex)) did indeed submit a CFJ on the statement
"I'm Spartacus!".  CFJ 1833 is TRUE.