Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> And at what moment of time do we apply that and do the recordkeepors >>> decide e is a non-player? (Making em inactive etc. is different, that's >>> us making em a non player whether or not e consents). >> >> In theory, it takes effect at the instant e applies eir act of will, >> when e decides mentally that e has left. Pragmatically, I have no idea >> how recordkeepors would find out. It's highly inconvenient and horribly >> platonic, but it's nevertheless morally necessary. > > On a practical level, we could use our various precedents on "consent" > with respect to contracts. I believe where it stands is that, in > order to determine consent, there must be evidence that consent was > given that a judge can accept, so the timing of consent is determined > from the first moment that such a record exists. > > However, it's worth pointing out that Rights are not violated by mild > administrative inconveniences that exist for the good of the game. > For example, there's a specific precedent that a dismissal due to > an excess CFJ is not rights-violating, because it's a minor matter > for the caller to re-call the case in the next week. Similarly, > requiring a public post to confirm the exercise of a right to leave > is not rights-violating *unless* it is judged that fora are broken. > > It's also important to consider: what does the right mean? I do > *not* believe the right exists to allow a current player to simply > vanish without notice, for example neglecting officers' duties, and > then later say "oh, I'd quit playing without telling you, so you > can't punish me for failure to perform." Rather, it's to protect > confirmed (by their own published choice) non-player from accruing > new duties and punishments. But YMMV.
Note, though, that this may be nontrivial to re-attempt. A person who deregisters can't deregister again for 30 days. I would argue that a player that 101-leaves and later comes back retroactively accepts eir back liabilities, as e has changed eir decision to wholly ignore the game. This seems fair; it doesn't break the right, it doesn't allow exploitation of the mechanisms of the rule; and it resembles/matches the existing tradition of Fugitives. (I just realized we missed the opportunity for a Notes+Fugitive=Fugue pun.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
