On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > 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.
Thanks for clarifying, it helps. Here's something to throw in the mix: When the rights-form of R101 was adopted, contracts were restricted to being between players (see R101 and R1742 amendments in proposals 4866- 4867, Aug-2006). So at that time, deregistration did indeed remove you from contracts and there was no practical or legal distinction between "not continuing to play" and "ceasing to be a player". Did the changing of R1742 to be between persons rather than players thus cause R1742 to violate R101 by removing the right to leave contracts by deregistration that previously existed? -G.
