No, I am not. I am exposing my opinion on that matter and saying that I don't know why there's anything against racism and discrimination in Inalienable Rights or in Social Contract. IMO it should be. That's why I brought Tom's name here.
IMO if the magistrates find a flaw in Social Contract they could/should take it to Tom so next time there would'nt be the need of a discussion.
I see no point in longs discussions here. Denounces here should be simple to decide. It IS a game. We are not deciding the future of the world.
But it is clear to me that my opinion differ - and much - from majority here.
Sorry, Miriam, I'm a little confused as to what you are "not", in reference to the quote. Would you explain further? I was only using your quote to better define my position in any case, and not rendering judgement on it.
I think I'm more or less on your side of the argument here, in that advising Tom is certainly a role of the magistrates. Also that there should be clear language in the contract as to racism. Ditto as to long discussions.
My personal opinion is that Kas did not break the rules. Not because the message wasn't racist (which IMO it clearly was), but because the contract isn't clear and/or specific enough on the matter of racism for there to be rules for Kas to break. So, in this, Kas gets a break. We should, however, address this in a Contract change/referendum/appeal-to-he-who-is-Tom. Otherwise we risk basing decisions purely on opinion and personal feeling, rather then clear contract-breaking. A result of this is expecting new players to not only memorize the Contract, but the entire body of Cases here on the forums AND be able to reasonably predict what the Magistrates will be "opinionating".
