Siden Rua wrote:
Nicholas wrote:
Discussion has yielded this proposed language:
Nicholas alone made this language with no discussion of others. Please don't speak for others when you alone wrote this.
Well, that's not true. I drafted up this language on the spot and presented it in Mumble for review and general spitballing; I asked others to share their thoughts on my take and critique it. Ignis voiced general approval; Mark recommended the changing of a specific word; Sam had a look over it; discussion did indeed take place. You were there as others shared their thoughts on this Siden. I then posted it here not as any kind of authoritative statement speaking for the community but simply sharing one possible take on what this section may end up looking like and requesting further feedback. Since, you know, we can still discuss matters such as these on the forums as well. Please don't present this as being a case of my strongarming the carta process.
But we're off topic.
Your language captures the spirit of the concept of contractual law that it seems we'll be moving towards. So, however, does mine. I stand by my original language (altered as per Mark's suggestion to replace the slightly archaic 'malfeasence' with 'impropriety' ): at 77 words to your 71 it is hardly too verbose and negligibly longer than your own. In my humble opinion it is clear and accurate, and on the strength of other voices of agreement in the course of our discussion this afternoon I raised it here for further brainstorming.
As we move forward towards refining contractual law, we'll no doubt be hearing different viewpoints on this complex issue; constraining brainstorming by limiting what can be posted here or trying to imply that an individual's thoughts should not be shared because they are not representative of everyone seems at odds with what this process should represent.