On Fri, 19 Jul 2013, Tanner Swett wrote:
> You have an argument, but I don't think it holds water. The mere fact that a
> majority of people can perform some action does not mean that that action is
> an essential part of the overall activity. Most people are capable of playing
> pickleball, eating paczkis, taking pictures of Venus, making lasagna, tearing
> newspapers into tiny pieces, and shoplifting, but these things are not
> essential
> parts of human life. If you were prohibited from doing one of these things,
> or
> even all of them, it wouldn't be a significant restriction of any of your
> human
> rights.
I agree with you! It wholly depends on how one defines "participation" in this
case, and "substantially limit", which are, by the rule itself, essential parts
of the right.
I'm trying to be very narrow here. I'm saying that:
(1) if there is an *avoidable* policy or rules interpretation (e.g. selection
of a datestamp from unclear options);
(2) that *consistently but arbitrarily favors* some members' posts over
others (through no control of said players), and therefore limits some
members participation over others (e.g. selecting a datestamp the imposes
specific and quantified delays on some and not others);
(3) to which there is a *specific case* in which a player's participation
was hindered by this, differentially to others, in concrete game terms
(e.g. my post versus scshunt's post and interpretations thereof);
than there's a *specific* rights violation.
This doesn't guarantee me or anyone perfect technological access going forward!
