On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 00:50, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my arguments. Short of physically > hiring a police force (or bruiser) that physically travels to a former > player's home and beats the &$...@! out of them I don't think its > possible to infringe on a person's R101vii rights. Someone can > unsubscribe to the Agoran lists and completely forget about Agora and > never have any adverse effect as a result.
Why is it so hard to see "continue to play" = "continue to be a player" = "deregister"? With this moron-level-obvious translation, "You can always deregister instead of continuing to be a player" fits every definition within the ruleset for these terms, is straightforward, untwisted, and makes sense and is fully in keeping with the context of the right when it was adopted. And sure, it's trivial to infringe on this right, how about a rule "no officer can deregister". Good lord, I want a cluebat. The question about whether contracts should be escapable by deregistration is a specific conflict between two secondary properties of R101 rights, your generally implied right to enter into contracts by consent versus your generally implied right to leave the contracts by deregistration. Can you sign away your right to leave by consent? Which right is more important? Good questions, but nothing whatsover to do with some mystical, magical "hard deregistration". -G.
