On Fri, 4 May 2012, omd wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > Erm, speaking of which, I just noticed, non-players can own > > golems, no? So a person can deregister and act through eir > > golem without punishment, no? > > The person can be punished despite being deregistered (through Rule > 2361, except it's broken by being restricted to Crimes), and if it's > necessary to enforce, a criminal case can be brought against the Golem > itself to exile it - non-players cannot *create* Golems. > > Well, I guess there are a few loopholes in that scheme - a prospective > rule violator could create a large number of Golems, deregister, > ignore eir own punishments, and use the Golems one by one, or an > accomplice could transfer em golems.
Crimes aside, I'm trying to decide if non-player ownership (and ability to act on behalf of the golem) is a bug or feature, especially if we're contemplating voting golems...
