On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > If we don't want them in general, we'd need to make sure that the > rules explicitly forbid anyone but a first-class person from being > defined as a person.
We find the concept of Second-Class Persons to be useful, and agree that Player-hood should be restricted to First-Class Persons. It's only Second-Class Players that we find baffling, and that create seemingly unnecessary complications in the Rules. The history makes sense, and it was probably necessary at the time, but the tighter definition of person-hood would seem to address the same potential problems in a more elegant way. No reason to have two solutions for the same problem, after all. At least not when one of them makes our brain hurt. --Wes
