Kerim Aydin wrote: >2. R1742 is actually an ACK from the Agoran side: "we recognize, if > the contract involving non-players invokes us, that the Agoran Courts > will take up the resulting case, rather than dismissing it as > irrelevant to the rules."
You can see it that way. The present R1742, unless crippled by R1503, achieves precisely this by making breach of contract a rule violation. So adherence to a contract certainly is relevant to the rules, if the contract is of the type that R1742 recognises. >No its not. Without R1742, I'm not talking about a situation that lacks R1742. > If they've agreed to be subject to Agoran >Rules, then they agree to vote, etc... in other words, they are players. Not at all. Those things that the rules describe as only relevant to players only apply if they register as players. It is only R1503 that attempts to make being bound by the rules coterminous with being a player. It is entirely possible to consider oneself subject to Agoran rules without feeling any compulsion to register. Someone who considers emself bound by the rules of Agora is in a wider sense "playing Agora", and might from an outside perspective be described as "a player". But that's not what "player" means in the rules. This "player" refers to a specific status defined by the rules, a status that is gained or lost by the effects of certain messages being sent to the PF. As a specific historical example, which came up this week in a different context, some years ago Morendil adopted a policy of being on hold as much as possible, which revealed some interesting rule bugs. E eventually moved on to being deregistered, while still playing in the wider sense. At one point e became Speaker while deregistered. The rules of the time meant that e thereby became a player, and e incurred various obligations by virtue of playerhood and Speakership. E did consider emself bound by the rules in that situation, as did everyone else. Even when not a player in the sense of R869, eir actions were constrained by the rules. >An inability to enforce does not invalidate the legality of an order >or decision. Quite so. I was discussing practicalities there, rather than legalities. -zefram
