On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Pavitra wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> And at what moment of time do we apply that and do the recordkeepors >> decide e is a non-player? (Making em inactive etc. is different, that's >> us making em a non player whether or not e consents). > > In theory, it takes effect at the instant e applies eir act of will, > when e decides mentally that e has left. Pragmatically, I have no idea > how recordkeepors would find out. It's highly inconvenient and horribly > platonic, but it's nevertheless morally necessary.
On a practical level, we could use our various precedents on "consent" with respect to contracts. I believe where it stands is that, in order to determine consent, there must be evidence that consent was given that a judge can accept, so the timing of consent is determined from the first moment that such a record exists. However, it's worth pointing out that Rights are not violated by mild administrative inconveniences that exist for the good of the game. For example, there's a specific precedent that a dismissal due to an excess CFJ is not rights-violating, because it's a minor matter for the caller to re-call the case in the next week. Similarly, requiring a public post to confirm the exercise of a right to leave is not rights-violating *unless* it is judged that fora are broken. It's also important to consider: what does the right mean? I do *not* believe the right exists to allow a current player to simply vanish without notice, for example neglecting officers' duties, and then later say "oh, I'd quit playing without telling you, so you can't punish me for failure to perform." Rather, it's to protect confirmed (by their own published choice) non-player from accruing new duties and punishments. But YMMV. -G.
