On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate > recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are > restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that > non-persons cannot be parties to contracts.
All the rule-defined assets are restricted to players. VPs and chits are unrestricted. Crops and lands are restricted to farmers. None are specifically restricted to persons. Game custom is that players who cease to be persons remain players. That's why the last sentence in R869 is necessary. My recollection is that the precedent went the other way: non-persons can be parties to contracts, but they cannot become parties to contracts. Do you remember which CFJ it was? It doesn't have an annotation in the FLR. -root
