On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Proto-judgement: I am going to go against the judgement of CFJ 2380
> here. Indeed, as long as the Rules provide a specific mechanism for
> upholding a right, we should defer to that mechanism and not invent a
> new one. But Rule 101 says:
I don't think this is against CFJ 2380 (see comments in CFJ 2381). 2380
says that deregistration-by-announcement invokes "ceasing to be a player",
and you're just extending what "ceasing to be a player" means to cover
more than strict registration status. I didn't say so in CFJ2380, but I
think that R101vii makes "deregistering" synonymous in all legal respects
with "ceasing to be a player", so the by-announcement mechanism does
anything we define "ceasing to be a player" to do.
> It has been found previously that a
> person bound to a contract is still playing the game even if e is not
> an official Player, as common sense demands.
Is there a reference for this? Don't remember it.
> The simplest mechanism to infer is a type of deregistration
> identical to normal deregistration, but extended from just Citizenship
> to contracts and obligations generally. This would allow anyone to
> free emself from those things by announcement, but would prohibit em
> from entering into contracts or otherwise taking part in the game for
> thirty days thereafter. I judge that this mechanism exists and
> Warrigal invoked it. FALSE.
It seems that we've gone full circle from the days when we wanted non-
players to be able to participate in contracts. In fact, there's
probably a set of contradictory precedents from that time (2007?) that
you might look up (I can't remember what they say). Also, something to
consider: when someone deregisters, do they have to invoke this separate
mechanism explicitly? What if they don't want to leave a contract, can
they deregister and still be considered members of Werewolves? And
where does that leave current non-Agoran Werewolf players? I think
some of these contracts were written specifically thinking that
non-players continued to be bound to contracts, didn't that happen with
ehird's obligations in the Vote Market? Etc. So I think some more
homework might be needed before all these assumptions are thrown out.
We used to have a rule that said something very similar. The rule could
be made into a precedent [in the below rule, I believe a CFJ decided
that "any role or position...duties or powers" included agreements/
contracts]:
Rule 1755/6 (Power=1)
No Non-Player Responsibilities
Whenever a player is deregistered, e ceases to be a candidate,
officer, judge, or in general to occupy any role or position to
which the rules assign any duties or powers. No one who is not
registered may occupy such a role or position, unless at least
one of the rules defining the role or position explicitly
indicate it may be occupied by a nonplayer.
Bearing a Patent Title shall not be deemed to be occupying a
role or position.
This rule shall not act to prevent a nonplayer from registering,
calling for judgement, or otherwise doing things that nonplayers
are generally able to do.
-Goethe
[ps. I just grepped for that in an old ruleset, good thing it was
there! :) ]
