On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:54 Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote:
> > Oh wait -- would amendment by less than unanimity create a R101(v)
> > conflict?
>
> Nope! Only if the voting process itself were patently unfair. When you
> agree, in joining the contract, to be bound by the results of a majority
vote,
> and provided the voting meets certain reasonable criteria (e.g. not held
> secretly from some members, etc.) you are agreeing that the (non-unanimous)
> voting process constitutes a "reasonable opportunity to review" that R101(v)
> requires.
>
> At least, that's the theory!
The problem is that the Vote Market prevents me from leaving under certain
circumstances.
Suppose I have 49 VP, and someone proposes to add an article reading "At the
beginning of each week, if watcher is a party and has at least as many VP as
there are parties to this contract, then one of eir VP is transferred to each
other party." Assume that, despite my best lobbying efforts, it passes.
I would then be unable to get out of this oppressive contract without fighting
the now-uphill battle to raise my VP above 50, and if I couldn't make it, I'd
be in breach of contract in two months.
Since we are assuming I was already under 50 VP when this was first proposed,
I would have no way of avoiding being bound by these new terms.
If such a thing is possible, it certainly flies against the spirit of R101 and
this should be corrected in legislature. (But we knew that contract law
needed... clarification already.)
watcher
--
If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called Research.
Albert Einstein
