On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > 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 thing is, interpreted that way, it doesn't seem like a very useful right: just rename "player" to "citizen" and it doesn't apply. And, of course, practically, the difference between player and non-player in terms of allowed actions is much smaller than it used to be... -- -c.
