On 07/30/2011 08:50 PM, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 31 July 2011 02:44, Pavitra <[email protected]> wrote: >> A person's exposure to this rule is eir own choice. It's not "14", it's >> "the lesser of 14 or whatever you feel like". The only exception is in >> the case of a scam, in which case I would expect the courts to rule >> DISCHARGE, unless the courts are corrupted by the scam, in which case it >> doesn't matter what the rules say because they can EXILE you for failing >> to purchase a fish license. > > Fair enough. Still, "you don't _have_ to agree" seems an inadequate > justification; consider something as popular and central as the AAA > (perhaps coupled with a bank): a choice between exposing yourself to > the possibility of unreasonable punishment and barely playing the game > at all doesn't seem just.
It seems like the obvious place to avert that would be while drafting the bank charter. What cap would you suggest? I feel that anything lower than 6 would block legitimate applications, but that anything higher than 3 would enable abusive ones.
