I sometimes use the language that sin is an “eye problem” that leads to an “I problem.” The Bible often uses language that sin is a force or disease which affects and infects us. And yes, I believe that we’re only healed of this disease by the work of the Holy Spirit.

This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.

Not always, but often, making unpopular changes is precisely what the executive is being paid to do. Their job is to implement these changes, make sure that they are the one everyone gets upset with, and then take that anger with them when they leave.

This is definitely the most reasonable approach.

Aye, aye, captain.

I agree with the direction you’re suggesting. I think it may also be helpful to identify a few key issues that would require more than a simple majority vote to overturn.

In particular, we’ve already gotten multiple posts on defederating from various instances, and on clearing our defederation list. My suggestion is that something like once per month we hold a vote on defederation issues. A 2/3 majority vote to defederate/refederate must be achieved to pass.

Though OP never actually stated that the machine can perfectly predict the future. If that’s the case, then yes, you should just take box B. But we’re not given any information about how it makes its prediction. If @Sordid@sh.itjust.works is correct in assuming it’s a 50-50, then their strategy of taking both is best. It really depends on how the machine makes its prediction.

I agree that we shouldn’t assume corruption if TheDude starts receiving any funds, but I think it would be beneficial to have clear expectations about how donations are being used. If it’s clear that excess funds go straight into TheDude’s pockets, great. Let anyone who wants to donate go for it. But I wouldn’t want anyone to donate thinking that they’re supporting server costs when they’re actually just tipping someone. Whichever way it goes, it just needs to be clear.

I think the biggest reason in favour of doing so would be that this would provide oversight and accountability for donations. I for one don’t feel entirely comfortable donating when I don’t know how the funds will be used.

Another potential reason would be to have multiple levels of democratized power. For instance, guests of the Agora might have no decision-making power, users some decision-making power, and members (having paid a one-time membership fee) some more decision-making power. Of course, that kind of structure assumes a decently large scale of organization.

If it comes to incorporating as a not-for-profit, I’ve got some experience with not-for-profits, and would be open to helping incorporate.