Yeah, that's kinda what I expected. But it was worth a shot. :P
On 2/18/2018 3:29 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Judge's arguments for CFJs 3625
While the caller's arguments are raise an interesting possibility, there are two
problems with them: eir message contained a contradiction, and eir logic is
First, the contradiction. The caller said "I do not consent to abiding by any
rule stating that I cannot register as a player." This statement is both quite
clear and fairly unobjectionable. However, I believe that it has one property
which is slightly unusual. It seems that this statement is intended to apply
not instantaneously, as we generally read actions to apply, but for (at least)
the rest of the message. We would have no reason to think that e was
consenting until the we read rest of the message, and the nature of the
message itself makes it clear that the entire message is to be read in the light
of that statement.
This would be no problem on its own, were it not for the next statement.
The caller proceeded to say "I register as a player." This contradicts the
previous statement, because registering as a player also involves agreeing
to be bound by the rules. As the caller points out, rule 869 says this
explicitly , but even if it did not, it would be clear both from the rules'
statement that they cannot bind non-players (but can, presumably, bind players),
and from the implications of the word "player" itself. What is a player other
than one who has agreed to play by the rules of a game? Saying "I want to become
a player, and agree to abide by the rules, except the ones saying I can't
become a player" does not actually count as consenting to abide by the rules,
and nullifies the registration.
Second, the caller misinterprets the statements "The Rules CANNOT otherwise
bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
consent" and "The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express
or reasonably implied consent." The rules do not bind deregistered players
to not reregister within thirty days any more than they bind them to register
again after that point. Binding a player to not register would be telling em
that e was not allowed to send in eir registration. However, all the relevant
rule does is tell us that such a registration will not be accepted (i.e.
will not have any effect on the game).  The rules may explicitly renounce
their jurisdiction over non-players, but their jurisdiction over the game
itself is final, binding, and absolute. 
The relevant actions in the caller's message must be thrown out as
contradictory, and eir logic, while appearing to be viable, is actually faulty.
ATMunn, I'm sorry to tell you that you're not a player. FALSE.
 "A person, by registering, agrees to abide by the Rules."
 In Agoran, they say that the player CANNOT register, not that e SHALL NOT
do so, making the question one of possibility, not permissibility.
 See CFJ 3580 and Rule 2141.