On Feb 7, 2008 5:25 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >CFJ 1772
>
> Thought you'd claim that. The fact that the ruleset isn't a R1742
> contract doesn't prevent it being an "agreement" for the purposes of
> R101 rights.
Perhaps, but from your own arguments for that CFJ:
If the rules are to be regarded as a contract, then, the set of
parties (the set of entities bound by the contract) is clearly the
unenumerated set of people who take game actions, whether or not
they are officially players. However, taking game actions other than
registration certainly does not constitute "explicit, willful
consent" to be bound by the rules. It is questionable whether even
registration as a player achieves this, but initiating a CFJ
certainly does not. On this point, the rules cannot be a contract as
defined by rule 1742.
You argue that if R101 iv. applied to the rules, some game actions
would not be possible, therefore it doesn't. The same argument can be
applied a bit muddily to R101 v., and anyway it wouldn't make sense if
some rights applied to the Rules-as-contract and some didn't.
Also consider this, from Rule 2171 (admittedly only Power=1):
The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima
facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and
privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to
be bound by the rules.
