On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nope, not at all, I'm not sure where you claim to be talking from
>> authority about the original intent of this. (iii) was for Mousetraps.
>> The original intent of (iv) was to protect against "secret" amendments
>> and to ensure that the Proposal System remained the Proposal system,
>> when the Rules were intended to be treated as an agreement.
>
> {
> None of the rights in R101 were added when this version of R101 was written,
> they were just pulled together from different parts of the Rules and
> called "rights". iv was a direct result of Mousetrap (biggest scam EVAR!!)
> and has come up many times prior to the "rights" form (e.g. CFJs 1289-1290).
> }
> -you,
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg11255.html
Good catch, I misspoke in the message you quoted and was blending (iii) and
(iv) without distinction. From memory, the right to "review changes"
was one I added in thinking of Rules as agreement and not part of the SLC
"right to not join" -- a quick glance back doesn't find "right to review"
anywhere prior to Rights though maybe I'm wrong.
By the way, "equity" used to be very very simple extension of agreements
back when we had Orders, needing only one paragraph for (inquiry) cases:
If the judge of such a CFJ finds that the
agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement
be binding under the rules, and that the agreement has in fact
been broken, then e may order the breaching party to perform
according to the agreement, or perform substitute acts that
would fairly serve the interests of the agreement; e may further
order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as
may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice.
-Goethe
