On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, comex wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Note that I don't feel this way about purely contractual obligations. > > What about the other special case I mentioned, a non-player playing > through a shell partnership? In both cases, the person is playing and > can probably defend himself; and definitely in the latter case the > person shouldn't be protected from all punishment.
Well I'm in favor of greater partnership control anyway, but barring that, I think that since partnerships need Agoran Consent to register, they're valuable enough that punishing the partnership to the deregistration point (by proposal if needed) works fine; assuming that afterwards no one's silly enough to consent to a new partnership. > Also... as it is, after a player deregisters, e either intends to keep > playing in 30 days, or does not. In the former case, e can be > punished for eir pre-registration crimes once e re-registers; in the > latter case, any punishments imposed at any time are meaningless to > em. Therefore, the only effective difference between punishing em as > a non-player and after reregistration is the "in absentia" factor; > this is definitely an issue, but I don't think it would make a very > big difference in practice. I think the answer lies in asking "why do we need the right?" Really, it's to avoid mousetraps - I think it's far more likely that a scam will come along (and has done) that requires players to deregister to escape the injustice of it. I would rather have an escape clause knowing that it would occasionally let someone flee into exile instead of the reverse. > So, aside from totally reforming the concept of a Player, how do you > think this can be resolved in the context of a R101 right? I don't > have an answer to that, but-- for what it's worth-- all but the most > liberal interpretations of the current R101 do not protect a > non-player from punishment, so my amendment would just clarify things, > not change them. That "most liberal" interpretation was the one I intended and that was generally accepted (fitting alongside the concept of "no non-player responsibilities") before we blurred the lines of playerhood when the 2007 era of contracts and partnership personhood began. Maybe part of the answer is to restrict rights to first-class persons, if the rule is based on the concept of natural rights it should be limited to natural persons. > What was the "frozen player" debacle? (see previous email - more detail needed?) -G.
