On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:42 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
> would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
> {{{
> This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
> contract in the next week is a party to this contract. All parties to
> this contract owe ais523 1 VP.
> }}}
> Obviously, this doesn't work, and it's a good thing this doesn't.
So, by your definition, "explicit" agreement to a contract is any sort
that results from a message? That is to say, the following, if
enacted into a Rule
Deregistering constitutes consent to join the Agoran Welcoming
Committee.
would definitely create explicit consent, by your definition, since
any person should be aware of the rule at the time that they
deregister; but in turn, the only difference between this and your
hypothetical Rule is the fact that it requires sending a message.
Is this the line to be drawn for such a strong term as "explicit"?
