Wooble wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question: >> what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision >> attempting to having contracts that were permitted to be binding to >> non-players.
Hence "Ruleset as Contract". > I for one would be happy to eliminate the possibility of non-players > "playing in the larger sense". How would that work? "Any attempt by a non-player to perform an action that would affect the gamestate is unsuccessful, unless the action is registering and the rules otherwise allow it"? I recommend at least continuing to allow non-players to initiate judicial cases, to simplify matters when a person's playerhood becomes ambiguous.
