Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

["Charles Schaefer" <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>]

2008/11/27, Sgeo <sgeoster@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > I hate to say this, because it will make me sound like a jerk (that isn't
> my
> > intention), but I'm going to say it anyway:
> > If people are joining contracts with sketchy wording, then that's their
> > problem. We're all nomic players here, let's make sure we understand
> things
> > clearly before jumping in. (This would also prevent a lot of
> ruleset-related
> > problems). If someone gets in over their head, let's let them call the US
> > Congress and ask for a bailout.
>
> I would support something where contracts can be designated "safe" or
> "not-safe", at the contract maker's discretion. Contracts designated
> "safe" would have protections for parties to the contract that
> "not-safe" would not have..


Create (via contract) a consumer protection group. Or you could enact
safe/non-safe SWITCHES via proposal. Either way works just fine.

-- 
> Charles Schaefer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss