On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Wooble wrote:
>> I for one would be happy to eliminate the possibility of non-players
>> "playing in the larger sense".
>
> How would that work? "Any attempt by a non-player to perform an action
> that would affect the gamestate is unsuccessful, unless the action is
> registering and the rules otherwise allow it"?
>
> I recommend at least continuing to allow non-players to initiate
> judicial cases, to simplify matters when a person's playerhood becomes
> ambiguous.
We needed to draw specific line previously. Random 2003 sample: rules
still had the "a Player may always deregister rather than continue to play"
but gave a pretty good definition of the line between "playing" and "not
playing" in R1755 below. Under this, only players could be "generally"
subject to the Rules, but non-players could be bound by contracts
without being considered to be "playing" iff the rules explicitly said that
they could. The rules are silent now, but since this rule has not been
superseded, it could be an operational definition by "custom".
In other words, operational definition: if you are generally subject to any
duties that the Rules should happen to impose, you are "playing", but if you
are only subject to rules (contracts) that you explicitly agree to on a
case-by-case basis, you are not playing.
Rule 1755/6 (Power=1)
No Non-Player Responsibilities
Whenever a player is deregistered, e ceases to be a candidate,
officer, judge, or in general to occupy any role or position to
which the rules assign any duties or powers. No one who is not
registered may occupy such a role or position, unless at least
one of the rules defining the role or position explicitly
indicate it may be occupied by a nonplayer.
-Goethe
