On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Note that I don't feel this way about purely contractual obligations.
What about the other special case I mentioned, a non-player playing through a shell partnership? In both cases, the person is playing and can probably defend himself; and definitely in the latter case the person shouldn't be protected from all punishment. Also... as it is, after a player deregisters, e either intends to keep playing in 30 days, or does not. In the former case, e can be punished for eir pre-registration crimes once e re-registers; in the latter case, any punishments imposed at any time are meaningless to em. Therefore, the only effective difference between punishing em as a non-player and after reregistration is the "in absentia" factor; this is definitely an issue, but I don't think it would make a very big difference in practice. So, aside from totally reforming the concept of a Player, how do you think this can be resolved in the context of a R101 right? I don't have an answer to that, but-- for what it's worth-- all but the most liberal interpretations of the current R101 do not protect a non-player from punishment, so my amendment would just clarify things, not change them. What was the "frozen player" debacle? -- -c.
