On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Roger Hicks <pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:31, Alex Smith <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> --- On Sun, 25/10/09, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I suppose. One point is that it would be nice to >>> limit mousetraps to >>> "impose unfair obligations", not "I can act on behalf of >>> you to steal >>> all your assets and deregister". Your home is your >>> castle and >>> whatnot-- in this case, your person. >> >> This is almost certainly a loophole; it was unclear whether >> it existed beforehand, but definitely existed once act-on- >> behalf was defined in the ruleset. (I was carefully giving >> feedback on the proposal in question in such a way as to try >> to ensure that a version with the loophole in question was >> the one adopted, so that I could use it with my recent >> mousetrap; once that's resolved, I'd be fine with locking >> contract act-on-behalf down a bit more tightly.) >> > Maybe all acting-on-behalf should be done equitably? I do tire of the > Mousetrap scams. > > BobTHJ >
What if the rules simply said that players must always be allowed to leave a contract? I'm sure that would break something, but what?
