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



Reply via email to