Bill_in_PDX said:
I love the concept, and the idea is something very important to keep in mind during the game.
In practice, I think this clause alone will be good for 40 or so PI/CC's during the game. It basically opens the window for every internet lawyer around to jam up the demo game.
I will agree with Bill on this. A contemporary example is the US Constitution, and it's amendments, which grant to the States all powers not given to the Federal Government. The sheer number of cases I have seen over just this is staggering.
Where do you draw the line? From what I can tell, much of our Constitution will be vague and fuzzy. This invites trouble, and easily has the potential to ruin the game. Consider this, in very few places (looking at several templates) is it stated don't do this or don't do that. That's a lot of room our there.
Put something like this in the preamble, or make it a permanent question in all Judicial elections. Putting this in the Con has the potential for disaster.
Regardless, my suggestion for wording would be:
Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions
not forbidden by forum rules, or by the laws of
COUNTRY_NAME, are within the right of every citizen.
Clear and straightforward statement of the idea. The second sentance is both vague and redundant, so scrap it. By stating this as "forum rules, or by the laws of COUNTRY_NAME", it covers all laws/ruling/etc that we might come up with. After all, the Constitution is also a law.
My preference, however, is that this is not in the Constitution, but is a question for Justices. That's a much better way to handle it. I can almost assure you that otherwise, someone will be elected who was not asked about their viewpoint, and has a different slant on things. A ruling will be made, chaos will erupt, CC's will fly, madness will ensue, people will quit and the game will, once again, be near death. And no, I will not be that person.
-- Ravensfire
-- Ravensfire
