On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:22 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >  > I agree to the following: "All players SHALL act as if this paragraph
>  >  >  were a rule with power 1 and ID number 2206."
>  >
>  >  I refuse to agree to this.
>
>  It seems to me the contract is basically unenforceable.  R1742, which
>  requires its parties to adhere to it, has lower power than Rule 105,
>  which restricts the ways by which entities can become rules.
I believe it's perfectly enforceable. But by agreeing to the contract, players
might cause themselves to have to choose between violating R1742 and
violating some other rules (and since they had the choice not to agree
in the first
place, EXCUSED should not apply). At least that was my understanding of "This
obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other
contract, or between the contract and the rules."

-woggle

Reply via email to