On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> * If you pledge to do a thing, then Agorans can evaluate whether you
> have broken your pledge or not, regardless of your consent.
>
> * The Referee can (maybe; see the other arm of this thread) issue
> you a card, regardless of your consent.
>
> * Other players can apply the consequences of that card to the game,
> regardless of your consent.
>
> * Other people can change their personal opinions of you based on
> your actions, regardless of your consent.
> I can’t see any contradictions that might arise if we treated a
> pledge from a non-consenting non-player as an Agoran pledge.
The standard definition we've used in the past is that a pledge is a
type of agreement, and agreements can't be held as binding without
consent. So it's a direct contradiction with R869, if you stick with
that definition for 'pledge'. (I'm not saying you have to stick with
it, I'm just elucidating the counterargument based on what's been used
in the past).
