On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It says e does not have to consider emself bound by it [at all] >> if e didn't have an opportunity to review it [before it was made]. >> Your interpretation makes it utterly meaningless in that it would >> still trap the person effectively whether e reviewed it or not. > > When e has a reasonable opportunity to review the amendment, it is no > longer "an amendment to an agreement which e has not had the > reasonable opportunity to review". Accordingly, e no longer has the > right to not be considered bound by it.
It depends on how you consider the making of amendment. In most cases (including the one under discussion) amendment-making is an "action". If *when the action is taken* the player has not had an opportunity to review, the action fails in some way, because one member is not bound by the action. If the action is repeated after review happens, then fine, the excuse goes away. But after-the-action review does not retroactively mean the original change-action worked, this is against precedent, Agoran custom, and effectively R101. > This is, obviously, not the > only interpretation of the clause, but it's reasonable, as the > original purpose of Rule 101 (iv) was (as you know) to protect against > a true Mousetrap, where a person is actively bound to a contract the > text of which e doesn't know. Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps. The original intent of (iv) was to protect against "secret" amendments and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system, when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement. -Goethe
