Goethe wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Amend Rule 2228 by removing the second paragraph. >> Restricted ownership of Rests. > > This points to another issue; this makes partnerships into shells who > can commit crimes etc without living up to the "devolve responsibility" > clause in any meaningful way. Although I suppose if you want to devalue > your property by burdening it with rests, that's a tradeoff, though > perhaps too powerful an option. > > But I wouldn't support this with current partnerships entrenched as > they are in offices, etc.--- I wouldn't vote to allow the Assessor and > Distributor to suddenly be able to break every SHALL with relative > impunity.
s/Distributor/Promotor/ Dangerous question du jour: How much damage could a malicious holder of $OFFICE really do within about four days (minimum length of time for em to be sacked, in the absence of the Guillotine)?
