On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 18:35 -0400, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If there is a rule in the ruleset that
> > implies that people can be potentially bound by an equation if they
> > agree to a contract, it stands to reason that a player should be aware
> > of this at the time that they agree to a contract, and thus are agreeing
> > to be bound by any equations that may appear as a result of it as well.
>
> Yes, I agree. Accompanying an explicit agreement to become party to a
> contract was an implicit agreement to become party to all equations
> that might be created as a result of said contract.
>
> > (The "explicit, wilful consent" required does exist here.)
>
> But I challenge Judge ais523 to name, if agreeing to equations is
> EXPLICIT consent, any method whatsoever by which one might only
> implicitly agree to a contract. I also intend, with 2 support, to
> appeal this judgement.
Implicitly agreeing to a contract doesn't actually work, but one example
would be me posting to a-b (or better, putting into the ruleset):
{{{
This is a contract. Any player of Agora who does not opt out of this
contract in the next week is a party to this contract. All parties to
this contract owe ais523 1 VP.
}}}
Obviously, this doesn't work, and it's a good thing this doesn't.
--
ais523
