On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, comex wrote: > 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...
I agree; the bug in R101 is that it refers to specific terms defined elsewhere such as deregistration, and is useful only as long as those definitions elsewhere stay fairly consistent. However, the right thing to do if you want your interpretation is to re-write R101 to be more general and explain what the right-to-leave means (that's the proto Pavitra and I were discussing for example), not re-define the terms in court when there's no support for doing so. -G.
