c. wrote: > iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a > binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound > by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a > party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent > shall be considered a refusal. > > [iii. add the privilege to refuse to be bound by an amendment. a > person must explicitly waive this, which is unlikely to happen with, > say, the Points Party]
How would this draw a line between mousetraps and not-intended-as-scams contract amendments that some parties don't like (e.g. W3O and only one party objects)? In particular, consider what happens if Y agrees to "X can act on behalf of Y to Z", then X scam-removes "to Z". > vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than > once for any single action or inaction. This right is not > violated by replacing part or all of a penalty with a > different but comparable penalty, e.g. when the rules > governing penalties are amended; but it is violated by a > second penalty even if the sum of the penalties is within > the bounds of penalization for a single action. > > [vi. add stuff after semicolon, make double jeopardy actually mean something.] I suggest adding "or when the first penalty is procedurally reversed" before the semicolon, and maybe even explicitly addressing secondary effects of penalties later reversed (e.g. lower voting limit on an ordinary proposal distributed between a SILENCE and its reversal).
