On Friday 25 January 2008 05:36:18 Ed Murphy wrote: > woggle wrote: > > There is some evidence that Pravita did not intend to become a player. > > This might be seen to create a R101 issue, since per R2171, the > > registration process is to preserve player's rights as if entering the > > rules were a binding agreement. Problematically, every relevant rule here > > takes precedence over R2171, so R2171's declaration cannot make > > ineffective R869's process for registration in spite of R101's > > requirement for "explicit and willful consent" to become party to a > > binding agreement. Ignoring R2171, the rules cannot constitute a binding > > agreement that is joined by becoming a player as they (as far as the > > rules themselves are concerned) are equally binding on players as > > non-players. (This is especially relevant in this case as Pravita is > > party to an R2145 agreement and thus was already subject to some > > obligations under the rules.) > > Counterargument: Pavitra's following statement indicated that e > understood and accepted the possibility that e was becoming subject > to the rules.
I noticed this (and I think I will mention it in my final judgement, as it weighs heavily in favor of not trying to give another meaning to 'registered' in eir message, not that R754 would even allow that absent another announced definition or similar). But I don't think Pavitra's implied consent would have been sufficient to consitute "explicit and willful consent", were that relevant. My primary concern would have been that the consent would have been conditioned on a misunderstanding of the agreement (believing that watchers are players) and thus would not be willful. - woggle
