On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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"?
Replacing "person" and "entity" with "player" wherever it's reasonable to do so would be a start. > I recommend at least continuing to allow non-players to initiate > judicial cases, to simplify matters when a person's playerhood becomes > ambiguous. I have no problem with that and agree that in cases like that where ambiguity could affect the legality of starting the process that resolves the ambiguity we'd need to be careful. But in general I think it's a bad idea to let people who either aren't eligible for playerhood (due to either exile or the 30-day cooling off period for deregistration) or who refuse to explicitly accept the rules by becoming players to "play" the game outside of the rules. As for contracts binding non-players, how are they binding? The person SHALL abide by them, but what do we do if they don't? Sentencing them to chokey, fine, and exile are sort of meaningless (assuming they don't, within the tariff period, decide that they want to register afterall), and sentencing them so that they SHALL publish an apology is all well and good, but what happens when they don't do that, either? An infinite regress of APOLOGY sentences for not publishing each one in the series?
