I'm really uncomfortable both citing CFJ#s in the Rules, and saying in
the Rules that agreements are interpreted "in the same fashion" as rules
because that implies all kinds of things (like they're part of the
rules, they can redefine things, how power/precedence works, etc).
Here's some simple text I grabbed from the old days, just need to up
the Power and add that players can use it for act-on-behalf:
Rule 1742/9 (Power=1.5)
Contracts
Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and
be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a
contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the
set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract
may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract
automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls
below two.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
[Add something about requiring explicit consent, and something
about explicit act-on-behalfs].
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I retract the below proposal and create _the following_ proposal
>
> I create the following proposal
> Title: Open Season II
> AI: 2
> Text: Create a new power 2.0 rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text
> "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way
> the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These
> agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are
> under Rule 217."
>
