It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This issue has also been opened on GitHub
First and foremost, we must ensure everyone comprehends the language used, in the same way.
It is of the utmost importance that we all agree on how the words in the constitution will be defined.
Are we really content in assuming everyone will comprehend this constitution in the same way? Words mean different things to different people. If we want this to be a universally binding agreement, we need to make certain that everyone comprehends this constitution in the same way. As it reads now, there is too much potential for wiggle room in individual interpretation. Left as is, I would expect to see someone argue in arbitration that they could not and did not, agree to the constitution, because they never comprehended it in the first place, and thus the articles of the constitution do not apply.
The underlying philosophical question is "Should consent without comprehension, be treated the same as consent with full awareness?" In the legal world I believe this issue is addressed by placing limitations on what can be considered contractually binding when ignorantly agreed to. If we collectively decide that our constitution will be binding without consideration of individual comprehension, we must make every effort to ensure the constitution is accessible, self explanatory, and impossible to misinterpret.
In what language is this constitution written?
The language used in this constatution seems to be very similar to modern English but I am afraid it could contain some Legalese, the often-misunderstood language of lawyers and judges. I am proudly not a BAR member, the entire language of legalese is incredibly misleading and was likely designed with the intentions of deceiving the native English speakers into actively consenting into obligations contracting under the illusion of comprehension.
One example which illustrates the nature of my concern is the Terms and Conditions which everyone is forced to accept before using a new web application, applying for a new credit/insurance and renting a car. Most folk never read that nonsense, partly because they do not care or will not be bothered by it, and partly because they do not understand it. There is no good reason for this confusion in my mind as the same agreement could easily be written in a language much more palatable to the common man, without the legal cost. Alas, Legalese is not meant to be understood by the common folk. It is written in Legalese.
Personal opinions aside, Black’s Law dictionary is drastically different than Webster’s English dictionary. The language we hear in court is not English. Legalese is an entirely separate language than English, both containing many similar words. We can not have constatutional consensus until we come to consensus on the language the constitution is written in. Are any parts of it written in Legalese? **I think the constitution itself should clarify which language and the corresponding set of definitions in which should or could be used to interpret this constitutional contract.
This could be written into article VIII for relevancy sake but as it is very important to know the language used before attempting to interpret the previous articles, could “language used” be placed as a preamble or sorts? There are some other definitions I feel like could be more clearly defined as well. They could all be presented at the top of the constitution or even as a glossary if need be. I want to make it absolutely clear what is meant by every word in the constitution.
This list is not meant to be conclusive. Other key terms and their definitions should be added to the final definitions
gloss or Key terms should include:
Developer- Each Member who makes available a smart contract on this blockchain.
EOS token holder
Termination of agreement- (could we simply say after 3 years of inactivity your account will be deleted forever) side note-is this nessessary?
Choice of Law
Initiation of violence