>If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an "agreement"?
If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an agreement, just not one that all bound players agreed to. - Ienpw III On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/07/2013 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: >> >>> I don't even see the point of iii. I realise there's history here, but >>> the >>> rules don't define "agreements" anymore, so what does this do? >>> >> >> As there is no official definition, we use a common legalistic sense of >> the term. That's broad in definition, and historically refers to all >> types of binding document that one might agree to. Parties are >> agreements, >> as were recent Contests. >> >> > Doesn't 101 iii. then just restate this definition? > > > Protects against a party constitution like "Anyone who posts the word >> 'the' to the public forum joins this party. To leave without violating >> this >> constitution, you must give us all your Yaks". >> > > At the moment, the rules already only have you joining voluntarily. So 101 > iii does nothing here. > > If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a constitution > they did not agree to, why would that be considered an "agreement"? > > E.g. A sentence of COMMUNITY SERVICE binds a player to something (an > arbitrary set of prescribed tasks) they did not agree to, nor had a chance > to review. This is not an agreement. > > -Dan >
