On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: >> >> Are you trying to imply that it is not possible for non-players to >> violate the rules? > > How could a non-player be bound by the rules of Agora? It would be > completely silly to, as a random example, accuse a US Senator of violating a > rule of a game they are not a player of (and potentially never heard of).
In the case of tusho, a very convincing case exists in agreeing and not trying to cease to be bound by several contracts governed by the rules (e.g. Flapjack, Teh Clothed Spelling Mistakes, Protection Racket), and having previously been a player, and actively influencing the game by proxy. > >> If so, then you should've judged UNIMPUNGED, and >> even if you had judged UNMPUNGED, I'd want to appeal that judgment >> even though I think UNIMPUNGED is an appropriate judgment here (just >> for different reasons). > > I keep getting innocent and unimpunged mixed up; it's entirely possible I > did so again. > >> Or is your remark based on tusho not having >> successfully changed eir posture? If so, then INNOCENT is right, but >> it'd've been nice if you were more clear. > > A non-player doesn't have a posture, do they? Yes, and the CAN which permits changing posture is also limited to players (which would be sufficient here even if non-players had posture). -woggle
