On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:50 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate
> > recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are
> > restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that
> > non-persons cannot be parties to contracts.
>
> All the rule-defined assets are restricted to players. VPs and chits
> are unrestricted. Crops and lands are restricted to farmers. None
> are specifically restricted to persons.
>
> Game custom is that players who cease to be persons remain players.
> That's why the last sentence in R869 is necessary.
>
> My recollection is that the precedent went the other way: non-persons
> can be parties to contracts, but they cannot become parties to
> contracts. Do you remember which CFJ it was? It doesn't have an
> annotation in the FLR.
>
> -root
Well, consider all the criminal CFJs filed against humans who weren't
online at the time, and therefore potentially weren't people.
--
ais523
