On 9/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root points out that this violates the spirit of Rule 101 (viii), but > I believe it fails to violate the letter. I suggest amending Rules > 101 and 1504 to clarify that the rules cannot directly impose > obligations on non-players, but can generally define the gamestate > with respect to their existence, actions and inactions. (In > particular, the rules cannot make it ILLEGAL for an exiled or > recently deregistered person to register, but can and do make it > IMPOSSIBLE.)
This seems somewhat backwards; contract obligations are only valid because they are imposed by Rule 1742. A better way to uphold viii. is to give every person the right to leave a binding agreement, or if you *really* want to preserve the spirit, make non-players ineligible to be parties to agreements, but again, that seems somewhat backwards...
