On 19/07/2013 10:47 PM, James Beirne wrote:
>If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a
constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an
"agreement"?
If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an
agreement, just not one that all bound players agreed to.
So 101 iii blocks a conspiracy to "mousetrap", but not a solo scam?
I said:
E.g. A sentence of COMMUNITY SERVICE binds a player to something (an
arbitrary set of prescribed tasks) they did not agree to, nor had a
chance to review. This is not an agreement.
What if it was assigned by an appeals panel? Then at least two people
agreed to it.
-Dan
