As a note, I would put my vote on Riki's definition and I'd like to add something to the whole mess... One, sorry Dy. I didn't know if my post seemed really forward, but I tend to like pouring water in the glass. If it stays there, it's a good glass, if it wets the carpet, the glass has a hole and needs to be fixed or thrown out.
Anyway, in the same way that a court would deal with it (I'll expound, if it seems like first amendment rights were violated and free speech is shot down, it has to go through a test called "Strict Scrutiny of the law" for content-neutrality and viewpoint-discrimination), we should have a test of strict-scrutiny that works exactly the same for every situation whereupon the situation is tested by a small voting body and decided as god-mode or not. It sounds more drawn out than it is, and I mean this more for big "Waa-waa" issues where people begin to get crappy. It works for the Supreme Court of the US and for the ICJ - it should work for us
Anyway, in the same way that a court would deal with it (I'll expound, if it seems like first amendment rights were violated and free speech is shot down, it has to go through a test called "Strict Scrutiny of the law" for content-neutrality and viewpoint-discrimination), we should have a test of strict-scrutiny that works exactly the same for every situation whereupon the situation is tested by a small voting body and decided as god-mode or not. It sounds more drawn out than it is, and I mean this more for big "Waa-waa" issues where people begin to get crappy. It works for the Supreme Court of the US and for the ICJ - it should work for us
![[Image: sig_dragon.jpg]](http://www.l5r.com/images/sig_dragon.jpg)
