On 5/22/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact that the Rules that would prevent it are "an explicit, binding
> agreement to the contrary". Unless someone once again broke the part
> that says that the Rules are treated as a binding agreement between
> all players... is that gone somewhere again?
Proposal 5469 repealed Rule 2171 in March, which had previously been:
Rule 2171/0 (Power=1)
Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement
In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were
a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every
player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged
Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding
agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.
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.
This had previously been part of Rule 1503 (Power=3) since August 2006
and your Proposal 4867, which immediately followed Proposal 4866
(which changed R101 to what it is now). Rule 1503 was repealed by
Proposal 5104 in August 2007 as part of Zefram's judicial reform.
About two months later, I created Rule 2171, although CFJ 1772 holds
that the rule was never effective due to its low power.
Of course, that creates a good interest-of-the-game reason to judge
that R101 i. is just broken for some reason or other, because who
knows what spurious actions have been announced in the last two
months.
