On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:53, 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.
That of course is another perfectly valid interpretation of R101 vii, and since it is no conflicting with the interpretation I stated above both should be followed. I wasn't arguing for ignoring this plain-text definition. I think we agree on this more than you realize. My judgment was an attempt to debunk the "hard deregistration" idea whereby a person ceases to be a player and is freed from all obligations (including contractual ones). Such a think need not be spelled out clearly in the rules since a player can exercise this right (unsubscribing from the lists and never coming back) regardless of what the rules state. Short of doing so however, the player is still participating in Agora, and while eir de-citizenship is protected via R101 vii, eir past obligations (including contractual obligations) are not. BobTHJ
