On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 13:12 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it > > does much the same with respect to the PRS. > > I'd argue that R101 doesn't protect anyone from contracts they're > already party to changing. > > I do, however, still maintain that R101(i) makes every SHALL in the > ruleset completely ineffective, including this hypothetical one.
I always interpreted R101(i) as meaning that the rules are completely powerless to cause players to do anything; however, breaking the rules may cause the other players of the game to attempt to apply punishments to you. Everyone could spontaneously decide to stop playing Agora tomorrow, and then the rules would have no power at all; all the rules are saying is that if you break a SHALL you can be criminally punished in-game, which generally makes it harder to steer the future course of the game. (In the extreme, an EXILEd player could keep on sending messages to the lists as if nothing had happened, but would mostly just be ignored by the other players, I expect.) Seen this way, R101(i) is self-evident. (A judicial finding also found that it was ineffective due to the bad English, which is worth bearing in mind.) -- ais523
