==============================  CFJ 2097  ==============================

    The Executor of a message that contains a CFJ is also the Initiator
    of that CFJ, even if the Executor says E submits the CFJ on behalf
    of someone/something else

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

Caller:                                 Quazie

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Quazie:                       18 Jul 2008 07:36:21 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     19 Jul 2008 00:41:44 GMT
BobTHJ recused:                         20 Jul 2008 00:36:59 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     20 Jul 2008 07:13:33 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 26 Jul 2008 03:59:56 GMT

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

Judge woggle's Arguments:

There is one case where the answer is clear. That is the case of a
partnership initiating an equity case for a contract it is not a party
to. In the case of a partnership structured like the PerlNomic
Partnership, it is not unlikely that the executor would not be
qualified to initiate that equity case and not be easy to determine.
As partnerships have long been recognized to have a right to act and
certainly should have the R101(iii) to resolve controversies
concerning a contract that have joined -- especially when the rules
concerning equity cases clearly attempt to permit it.

Therefore, I judge FALSE.

Now, the apparent real purpose of this CFJ is to overturn
act-on-behalf rights, which presently are primarily a matter of game
custom and judicial precedent. It would be injust to overturn this in
the case of partnerships as then the rule's definition of partnerships
as persons would be pretty useless. The more interesting case, of
course, is that of first-class persons.

Sending messages is a complex process. We have, in the past,
recognized automated messages on behalf of a person, which is
certainly more extreme than delegated authority. And, really, there's
no reason to require a very strong and direct connection between the
act of sending a message and its sender. Indeed, most people could
easily setup technical means for forwarding messages such that we
could not tell if e sent or if someone acting on eir behalf sent it.

Now, the game protects itself against uncertainty in this way by
trusting a message's claim of who sent it (the Who
am I? rule). I do not think it is in the best interest of the game to
disallow people from doing this "delegation" manually, when clearly it
is technically possible. We can reasonably read a contract granting
authorization to act on behalf of someone as a promise not to
challenge the identity of (sub)messages matching that criteria in this
sense.

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

Judge woggle's Evidence:

[Excerpt from R2171]
     The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who
     sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be
     sent.  The executor of an action performed by announcement is
     the executor of the announcement.

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