On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > 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.)
Every small step in this chain of events is legal though. I suspect we'd have to wait for an actual case for a judge to say whether a particular step in this chain violated R101. -Goethe
