On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This is doubly wrong. First, deregistering doesn't absolve you of >> contractual obligations; second, non-players are not generally >> restricted from possessing or transferring assets (only certain >> assets are restricted to being possessed by players). >> >> > Do contractual obligations that extend beyond deregistration violate R101 > viii?
A fair question, and one that has been vexing me as late. The question: what does "continue to play" mean? That phrasing of R101 didn't envision attempting to having contracts that were permitted to be binding to non-players. -Goethe