On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> According to that proto-judgement, you can still deregister normally
> if you want to stop being a player but continue to play, as R101
> creates a separate mechanism that must be invoked explicitly. People
> who deregistered but continued to play Werewolves, or who joined
> Werewolves without being players, did not specifically indicate that
> they wanted to cease to play (because they didn't), and I think making
> R101 break the game in that way is too broad a mechanism to infer to
> protect a right. (ehird, by the way, is still bound by contracts
> despite eir recent posting, by the precedent of CFJ 1753.)
Hmm, there's an awful lot of contradictions in CFJs 1709, 1754, and
your proto, surrounding the definition of "player". The word "player",
*when used in R101*, can either means player in the R869 sense ("someone
registered") or player in the common definition ("one who is playing"),
but not both in the same rule (that goes against common sense). Since
R869 is lower powered than R101, we could legally use use either
definition in R101 (the new R754), and CFJ1709 suggests both uses are
relevant to the rules in general.
The problem is that CFJ 1753 takes R101 player to mean "someone
registered", your proto takes it to mean "one who is playing".
I think at the very least, if your proto holds, then it overturns
CFJ 1753, and much we've assumed about contracts. Or am I missing
something?
-Goethe
