On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is an additional wrinkle in the Agoran context. Rule 101 says
> that "that no interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may
> substantially limit or remove a person's rights as defined by this
> Rule". This phrase could be taken to forbid waivers as a limitation or
> removal of a right.
FWIW, I disagree with this judgement because it departs from the
history of Rule 101, which separated inalienable rights from waiveable
privileges:
The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or
privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges
are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding
agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any
rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or
privileges.
In particular, I am fairly certain the clause about "no... binding
agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's rights" was
intended to forbid waivers in exactly that manner. While we no longer
have privileges, I believe the principle should still apply.
