Charles Reiss wrote: >> 6397 D 0 2.0 Pavitra Support Diplomacy > AGAINST (should not be disinterested) Um, what? "Should be disinterested" is a sensible enough reason to vote AGAINST a proposal, because the author of a passing interested proposal gets paid for it, but... /what/? Is there something morally objectionable about acts of charity?
Sean Hunt wrote: >> Proposal 6397 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by Pavitra >> Support Diplomacy > AGAINST, this defeats the purpose of the rule in the first place. Not really. The purpose of the rule in the first place is to prevent arbitrary creation of corporate persons by too few natural-person individuals. The requirement that those individuals be active players is a relatively recent amendment to the pre-existing rule. If you have something specifically against inactives, and this proposal fails, I'll draft something to make activity orthogonal to citizenship.
