On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: > I don't even see the point of iii. I realise there's history here, but the > rules don't define "agreements" anymore, so what does this do?
As there is no official definition, we use a common legalistic sense of the term. That's broad in definition, and historically refers to all types of binding document that one might agree to. Parties are agreements, as were recent Contests. Protects against a party constitution like "Anyone who posts the word 'the' to the public forum joins this party. To leave without violating this constitution, you must give us all your Yaks". -G.
