> On Nov 20, 2023, at 11:44 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:43 PM nix via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby >>> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule >>> that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from >>> performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide >>> by an agreement to which e has consented. >> >> Aren't the rules themselves "an agreement to which e has consented"? >> >> -- >> nix >> >> > Oh was it that obvious? I was keeping that one to myself! :) > -- > 4ˢᵗ > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
It’s not immediately obvious IMO, but it’s come up a few times in the past. Relevant CFJs https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3706, where G. found that Agora was a contract https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3813, where I overturned G’s ruling, finding that it wasn’t. In any case though, my ruling rests on “contracts” as a specific game entity, not agreements in general. Gaelan
