On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Note that I don't feel this way about purely contractual obligations.
>
> What about the other special case I mentioned, a non-player playing
> through a shell partnership? In both cases, the person is pla
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, ais523 wrote:
> One solution to this might be to implement some sort of hard
> deregistration that is actually separate from the current time, with a
> massive timeout on rejoining, so that people can actually leave the game
> and no longer be bound by the rules.
This is too
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:58 AM, ais523 wrote:
> This is a hugely problematic opinion. I don't think it's acceptable to
> break the rules of any game that you play voluntarily unless you want to
> quit the game permanently, criminal courts or not. As a result, what
> you're doing here effectively
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Note that I don't feel this way about purely contractual obligations.
What about the other special case I mentioned, a non-player playing
through a shell partnership? In both cases, the person is playing and
can probably defend himself; and d
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 11:43 -0400, comex wrote:
> After forfeiting, there is nothing that suggests that the player can
> ever return to the game after losing, so it doesn't make much of a
> difference when it comes to, say, point penalties. Both the rule and
> my amendment seem to prevent penaltie
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
>>> viii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
>>> to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
>>> but, if e
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
>> viii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
>> to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
>> but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties
G. wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
>> viii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
>>to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
>>but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
>>not unduly harass em.
>>
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, comex wrote:
> viii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
>to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
>but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
>not unduly harass em.
>
> [viii. clarify
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 15:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
> Semi-related proto-proto: Make all acting on behalf that does not
> violate a R101 right permissible but not legal, with a minor
> infraction for doing so unintentionally without consent, and a serious
> (10+ rest penalty) infraction for willf
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 13:13, Ed Murphy wrote:
> c. wrote:
>
>> iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
>> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
>> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
>> pa
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> How would this draw a line between mousetraps and not-intended-as-scams
> contract amendments that some parties don't like (e.g. W3O and only one
> party objects)? In particular, consider what happens if Y agrees to
> "X can act on behalf of Y t
c. wrote:
>iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
> party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM, comex wrote:
> That's the idea of making it a privilege-- you can waive your privilege to
> not be bound by amendments to contract X beforehand, but it has to be
> explicit. Most contracts should work fine without a waiver-- what legitimate
> contract forbids its p
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
There should be some allowance for agreeing to a process of amendment
- for instance, if a player joins a contract allowing amendment by
announcement at their own risk. The amendment should, however, be very
specific as to wha
> iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a
> binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound
> by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a
> party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent
> s
Amend R101 to read:
WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must
balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,
BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law o
17 matches
Mail list logo
