On Friday, April 18th, 2025 at 8:44 AM, Rowan Evans via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'll deal with the matters raised explicitly by the dictionary. By your own > analysis, "confederate" and "unite" are synonyms, with the exception that > confederation is done for a common purpose. To unite something doesn't > imply mutual cooperation. When I screw a lid onto a jar, I unite the two, > whether they want to or not. As to the common purpose, that is plainly > provided in the text of the rule -- "with the intent of forming a single > person under this Rule". This uniting has a purpose, therefore it's a > confederation. It appears you're arguing across definitions here. To invoke the dictionary again, "to be united" may be equivalent to "combined", in the sense of the lid and the jar, or it may mean "being in agreement", as is probably reasonably clear from the other definitions of confederate. Additionally, R869 is not *proscribing* a purpose, it is *requiring* it. If two persons confederate, but not with the intent to become a player, they cannot become a player, even if one of the two attempts to register as such. -- kiako, Archivist, Webmastor
