On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: > 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?
In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents to join and make this an agreement". There's a threshold thing. As soon as the text becomes an agreement, R101iii is protective. While it's just a text, it's not an agreement. But in "the instant of" the text becoming an agreement, does it apply? Common sense says yes. I think we have a few of these fencepost type of questions come up, they're not always obvious, in this case, the strong wording would lead us to "interpret" this in the most protective way possible IMO.
