On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 10:44 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think R101's relevant here when a contract isn't involved (one
> > was in the case of CFJ 1856). It would, probably, prevent me ratifying
> > the IIB as a player, as its personness is in doubt for
> > contract-law-related reasons.
>
> Well, I forget what the current status of rules-as-a-contract is; if
> we're currently viewing the rules themselves as a contract, or if
> we're not but we return to that standpoint someday without an explicit
> rule change, then that could be a problem.
>
Anyway, I'd consider attempting to become a player consent to be bound
by the rules (if they are a contract), so it's possible to ratify
whether such an attempt worked. Also, it's definitely possible to ratify
whether a deregistration attempt (like ihope's) worked.
--
ais523
