The whole point of well-defined game stoppers for specific events is to allow public discussion and democratic decisions on how to address those events. It is not about letting some people hold the game up so they can take over next election, which is why I tried to make it clear that only specific instructions are valid, not completely general ones.
The biggest example that comes to mind is stopping if war is declared against us. Unless there are advance plans for conduct of such a war, the DP should stop immediately, regardless of whether we allow leaders to leave instructions to stop.
Lack of confidence that this will actually happen is what led me to propose it as a law. This is not aimed at one individual, but at many: Even worse, we seem to have a situation where some players would ignore common sense and do the opposite of what other players suggest, just to prove a point about the law. That is the root of our problems.
To Donsig's credit, my sense is that he is trying to force our leaders to conduct discussions and seek the people's will prior to play, and that is a noble and necessary goal. There are many valid reasons why this might not happen, and some nefarious ones too. Fortunately it is a self-correcting problem -- maybe we should have a citizen group post a rating of candidates past performance as leaders, similar to the PSC board rating of polls.
In summary, the stop instruction are not there to allow leaders to get away with not planning, they are proposed to allow leaders to plan in the face of unforseen circumstances. How can that be a bad thing?