On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > We have: [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those > who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they > have the rule-defined status of "player".] > > And then in R869: "The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any > agreement > without that person's willful consent." and "The Rules CANNOT compel > non-players to act(...)" > > So, if you're a person who is "playing" the game (for example, puppeteering > someone via > their agency), but who isn't a Player and you don't give a damn about the > rules, are you > bound to the rules as per CJ1709 or are you not as per R869?
The reasoning in CFJ 1709 was highly specific to the contracts and rights rules language that is now completely gone. Not to say something similar might not hold today, but the argument would have to be re-made specific to Agency and other current rules-language. An example question: R869 doesn't forbid compelling non-players to NOT act. So a non-player *might* be able to violate a SHALL NOT. That language in R869 was added in 2013/2014, when we removed our "Bill of Rights" version of R101. This substantially changed the landscape of these sorts of broad protections/rights, and we haven't really litigated these issues since then.
