On Feb 4, 2008 1:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In any case, I'm not sure objections to a majority of a comparatively
> tiny legislative body being able to hand out punishments really apply
> in a direct democracy. Is the whim of a majority of all Players
> really worse than the whim of 4 specific players chosen by a 5th?
> It's not like we have a Supreme Court comprised of 0.000003% of the
> Players, chosen by a rigorous process and subject to impeachment.
I think you could make a similar case for any of the rights defined in
Rule 101, yet that rule is still quite useful. In fact, a proto for
consideration:
Amend Rule 101 by appending after paragraph viii. the text:
ix. Every person has the right to not be penalized by bill of
attainder or by any rule or proposal that operates in an
ex post facto or retroactive manner.
x. Every person has the right to hold as binding the
obligations of contracts to which e is party.
-root
