In my view, rule 1742 doesn’t pose a problem. A person by registering gives willful consent to be bound by the rules, and the rules say that parties to a contract can modify it by adding additional players as parties. So by virtue of willfully consenting to be bound by the rules, a player also consents to this mechanism of altering contract.
The language you cite does prevent non-player persons from being bound by contracts or anything else in Agora without their willful consent. But I do not view it as a protecting players from the consequences of their willful consent to be bound by the rules. > On Feb 9, 2019, at 11:04 AM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Sat, 2019-02-09 at 13:30 +0000, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I then, as permitted by Rule 1742/20, modify the contract by changing >> the set of parties to it to the set of all players. > > I suspect this fails. Rule 1742 (power 2.5) is outpowered by rule 869 > (power 3): > >> The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement >> without that person's willful consent. > > A potential loophole that might allow the scam to continue working > would be to argue that the set of players bound by a contract, and the > set of players who are parties to the contract, are different (this > would allow act-on-behalf of the parties without requiring them to > abide by the contract). That seems to violate the wording of rule 1742, > though: > >> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may >> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be >> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. > > This seems to define parties as consenting by definition, and although > you can argue that rule 1742 thus causes the players who are added to > the contract to consent to it, 869 says "wilful consent", which this > clearly isn't. > > -- > ais523 >
