#contractual obligations and agreements

[iotavenews]

[vinyls-and-valentines]

Something possessed me when I made this character do a backflip and it looks good, but realistically they would so break their neck if they ever attempted it </3

[attorneysmedia]

Indemnity Bond

Indemnity Bonds: Navigating Legal Protection in Business Transactions In the intricate world of contractual and financial law, the concept of an “Indemnity Bond” plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the interests of individuals and entities involved in various transactions. This legal instrument, essentially a promise by one party to compensate another for any loss or damage, has become a…

[groovywonderlanddeer]

Understanding Hold Harmless Agreements and Their Importance

Imagine you are hosting an occasion, whether it's a marriage, a conference, or a simple get-collectively. You've installed countless hours of planning, coordination, and effort to make sure the whole lot goes easily. But have you ever concept about the capacity risks and liabilities that might get up? This is where harmless agreements come into play. In this article, we'll delve into the world of preserving harmless agreements, exploring importance of indemnity in business contracts what they are, why they are counted, and how they can defend your hobbies.

What Are Hold Harmless Agreements?

Hold harmless agreements, also referred to as indemnity agreements or release of legal responsibility agreements, are legally binding contracts between two events – regularly referred to as the "Indemnitor" and the "indemnitee." These agreements define the responsibilities and liabilities every party assumes in case of any unexpected incidents, accidents, or damages at some stage in an event or activity.

Types of Hold Harmless Agreements:

There are two main types of hold harmless agreements:

Broad Form: In this agreement, one birthday party is of the same opinion to hold the other birthday party completely harmless, even in cases of the alternative birthday party's negligence. It's a comprehensive level of protection however is often deemed debatable because of the huge scope of insurance.

Limited Form: This settlement holds one birthday party harmless simplest for certain specified dangers or liabilities. It's extra-centered and is usually used to allocate obligations for unique situations.

The Importance of Hold Harmless Agreements

Risk Mitigation: Hold harmless agreements play an important position in hazard management. Whether you're an enterprise proprietor, event organizer, or property owner, you're exposed to ability dangers. These agreements assist you in allocating dangers and liabilities, ensuring that each celebration bears the obligation they are pleasantly geared up to address.

Clarity and Expectations: Clear communication is the muse of any successful courting. Hold harmless agreements lay out the expectancies and responsibilities of each birthday party. This clarity facilitates the prevention of misunderstandings and disputes in the future.

Legal Protection: In the unlucky event of a lawsuit, a properly drafted harmless settlement can offer a strong felony defense. It can reveal that both parties willingly commonplace their respective obligations and agreed no longer to preserve each different responsibility.

Contractual Flexibility: Hold harmless agreements are versatile and may be tailored to suit the precise wishes of the events concerned. This flexibility allows for an honest distribution of danger, contemplating the nature of the hobby, ability dangers, and the connection among the parties.

Drafting an Effective Hold Harmless Agreement

When drafting a maintained harmless settlement, numerous key elements should be taken into consideration:

Clear Language: The agreement ought to be written in plain and understandable language, averting complicated felony jargon.

Scope of Coverage: Clearly outline the scope of coverage, outlining the dangers and liabilities that the settlement addresses.

Indemnification: Specify the quantity to which one party consents to indemnify the opposite – whether it's for all liabilities or only specific ones.

Insurance Requirements: Determine whether one or each event is required to carry insurance and what type of coverage is vital.

Governing Law: State which jurisdiction's legal guidelines will govern the settlement in case of a dispute.

In Conclusion

Hold harmless agreements are an effective instrument that helps mitigate dangers, guard interests, and ensure clarity among events concerned in numerous sports. By sincerely outlining duties and liabilities, these agreements contribute to smoother operations and more potent prison defenses.

Remember, before moving into a hold harmless settlement, it is important to consult criminal specialists who can ensure the agreement is legitimate, enforceable, and tailor-made to your specific situation. So, whether you're organizing an event or conducting a probably unstable enterprise, information hold-harmless agreements may be a pivotal step toward safeguarding your pastimes. As the saying goes, "Expect the best but prepare for the worst."

As the legal panorama evolves, the need for well-crafted agreements becomes even more crucial. These agreements are not pretty much paperwork; they're about setting the level for accountability and successful interactions.

[lawofficeofryansshipp]

West Palm Beach Business Lawyers | Commercial Litigation Lawyers

West Palm Beach Business Lawyers What is a Business Contract? Contracts between two businesses usually have very different rules than contracts involving a business and a consumer (i.e., seller and buyer) or two individuals. Generally, courts assume that businesses will better understand the law of contracts and apply fewer limitations and protections over how these businesses choose to draft a…

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

The Woodland Park Zoo is my home zoo, and the possibility of a strike has been brewing for a while. The staff at the zoo have been working without a union contract for over 200 days because the zoo is unwilling to pay them a living wage.

Zookeepers around the country are consistently underpaid, and Seattle is an incredibly expensive place to live. The zoo is losing animal care staff rapidly - I've been told they'd lost five keepers and a vet tech to another nearby AZA zoo this year alone - because they can't afford to live here. And I've been told that because there's no contract, the zoo is on a hiring freeze, which means they're perpetually understaffed.

Photo credit: Yulia Issa

There was an informational picket outside of a big event last month, which got a ton of community support. Then the only content the zoo put out for National Zookeepers Week was a single post about how much gratitude the staff are owed, which... hmmmm, came off a little tone-deaf in the current moment.

Now it looks like staff might end up striking to make their point, after almost a year of negotiations.

"Workers at Woodland Park Zoo, who are members of the Joint Crafts Council (JCC) Coalition of Unions, have been making plans to protect the animals if they go on strike. If the group of 200 workers is unable to reach an agreement with their employer over a new contract, they say they will run a skeleton crew that would provide necessary care to the animals but require the Zoo to close its doors to the general public. “We are making contingency plans to ensure the continued well-being of the animals if we are forced to strike,” said Janel Kempf, a learning coordinator who has been with the Zoo for 25 years and is a Shop Steward with Teamsters 117. “A strike is an absolute last resort and one that none of us takes lightly, but the Zoo keeps pushing us in that direction. If the Zoo doesn’t change course soon, we will have no other choice than to withhold our labor.” Negotiations between the Coalition of Unions and the Zoo have been ongoing for the last ten months with workers growing increasingly frustrated at what they say is the Zoo’s failure to value and retain an experienced workforce. “We are hemorrhaging critical animal care experience which directly affects the standard of care we can provide for our animals,” said Allison Cloud, an animal keeper and member of Teamsters 117. “The Zoo is forcing us to choose between our livelihoods and our animals, a heartbreaking decision no zookeeper ever wants to make.” Workers say low wages, the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, low morale, and high turnover have put the Zoo’s AZA accreditation at risk. Loss of accreditation could cripple the Zoo’s resources and lead to the transfer of animals to other accredited facilities. "Woodland Park Zoo cannot maintain AZA accreditation without us,” said Joe Gallenbach, an Exhibit Technician with IATSE Local 15. “The loss of AZA accreditation would demonstrate catastrophic mismanagement on the part of the Woodland Park Zoological Society.” The Coalition of Unions and the Zoo have one more bargaining session on the calendar: Friday, August 9. If the Zoo does not make an acceptable proposal next Friday, workers say they will take their case for fair wages and benefits to the public through direct, concerted action."

Now, when you bring the risk of AZA accreditation loss into the conversation, things get interesting. I've written before about how some zoos are legally or contractually obligated to maintain AZA accreditation and couldn't choose to leave. Woodland Park Zoo is one of those facilities: the agreement with the city that allows the Woodland Park Zoological Society requires them to be AZA accredited. If they lose it, they default on the agreement.

So, would there actually be a chance the facility could lose accreditation if the staff struck? I couldn't find any recent information about staff at other AZA zoos striking and how it related to their accreditation cycle, but I did find this, in an AZA press release about how the Aquarium of the Bay lost accreditation a few months ago.

"Silver Spring, Md. (May 24, 2024) –  The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Accreditation Commission unanimously voted to rescind the accreditation of the Aquarium of the Bay.  The independent Commission notified the institution on May 13, 2024, following its conclusion that the aquarium was not meeting accreditation standards in a number of key areas, including financial stability, staffing capabilities, and employee morale and turnover. Aquarium of the Bay has until June 13 to appeal the Commission’s decision."

So it looks like staffing issues and employee morale can definitely be things taken into consideration. Let's look at the AZA standards for more info. I found a couple standards that appear to be relevant:

7.3 "There must be an adequate number of trained paid and unpaid staff to care for the animals and to manage the institution’s diverse programs." Justification: "Although there is no set formula for prescribing the size of the staff (paid and unpaid), some of the criteria that may be used to define what is considered “adequate” include the number and type of species within the institution, the general condition of the animals and exhibits, and past staffing practices."

7.4 "Compensation for paid staff should be competitive with other similar positions in the local/regional/national market, as appropriate." Justification: "Institutions must be able to recruit and retain qualified paid staff. Competitive compensation is a key component in recruitment and retention of paid staff. Some positions can be successfully recruited for locally, while others are competitive on a more regional or national basis (e.g., animal care specialists)."

Both of those look like they could quite reasonably be an issue for WPZ at this point. They're losing paid staff due to low wages and operating understaffed due to the hiring freeze. Staff obviously aren't getting appropriate compensation if they're looking for jobs at nearby facilities that pay better.

Now, would the zoo actually lose accreditation if a strike came to pass? Honestly, I doubt it, because WPZ is too big a feather in AZA's cap for them to penalize them that harshly. Columbus - an equally prominent institution - got kicked because of a major public animal use scandal, but it was pretty clearly political because of how quickly they were re-accredited. I'd expect AZA might give WPZ a slap on the wrist, some stern public comment, maybe some minor penalties, but I'd be very surprised if they were willing to kick WPZ to the curb over something "just" as minor as a staffing problem.

Regardless, zoo staff deserve to be paid a living wage. I'll be really sad if the zoo is closed to a strike once the snow leopard cubs get old enough to debut - but I'd still rather the staff be paid a living wage than be able to see the fluffballs immediately. I want the people working at the zoos I visit to not be living in poverty. Zoo staff pub in an incredible amount of effort to care for animal collections and to facilitate the guest experience, and they should be able to do that without multiple roommates or three jobs. I know that the practical reality is that not all facilities can afford to pay their staff as highly as is ideal, but I'd expect a big zoo with reliable city funding to be able to do better. Supporting the zookeepers (and other zoo staff) is supporting the zoo.

I'll be keeping an eye on this going forward, both from a personal perspective (I'm a member, and I have a vested interest in what the organization I give money to does) and a professional interest in industry politics (what does AZA choose to do). I'll update if there's anything interesting on either end.

[54625]

With the upcoming Fit lore later today, I figured it may be useful to transcribe his earlier lore drops for those of you who may not have been there, or want a refresher. These were attempts to contact the contractor to relay information, and happened before the dreams.

-First attempt-

(Text appears on screen.

CONNECTING...

BYPASSING FEDERATION FIREWALL

ATTEMPT FAILED

ERROR)

Fit- Hello, it's me.

Fit- Sorry I've been taking my sweet time.

Fit- I've been busy...

Fit- We need to pivot from our original plan.

Fit- I've adopted a son, and I've been caring for him.

Fit- I've grown attached to him, so he's been my priority.

Fit- Being a single dad is a challenge at times.

Fit- But it's much easier than the nomadic lifestyle.

Fit- Life here is very different from the wasteland.

Fit- But I haven't forgotten our agreement.

Fit- I will fullfil my contractual obligations.

Fit- They're still falling for the whole "vacation" thing.

Fit- I ask that you be patient though, as we have a problem.

Fit- Something called "The Federation" controls this entire island.

Fit- They've been keeping us here.

Fit- As long as they are in the way, I can't access what you are looking for.

Fit- And the anti-cheat on the island is strong.

Fit- I haven't been able to use my abilities.

Fit- The Federation must be eliminated for this to succeed.

Fit- I've gained everyone's trust and made friends...

Fit- I've been helping their fight against the Federation in order to advance our plan.

Fit- Still... It hurts me to see everyone suffering...

Fit- Some have lost things they cared about...

Fit- But this struggle is an unfortunate necessity...

Fit- The conflict is increasing the value of what you seek...

Fit- I know you're paying me...

Fit- But have you considered......

...the true cost?

Fit- regardless of my personal feelings, I'll slowly move the plan forward.

Fit- I hope you find what you're looking for.*

Fit- It's getting late...*

MESSAGE FAILED TO SEND

Disconnecting....

*(it is worth noting that these are messages Fit had previously sent in the Minecraft global chat in that odd font.)

-Second attempt-

(Text appears on screen.

CONNECTING...

BYPASSING FEDERATION FIREWALL)

Fit- Checking in.

Fit- I am messaging you again to keep you updated on my progress.

Fit- The Federation still has full control of the island.

Fit- They've been putting on some strange election....

Fit- I'm assuming to keep everyone occupied.

Fit- However, it seems they've let a vulnerability slip.

Fit- Player data and statistics are being tracked.

Fit- The Federation must have this data stored somewhere on the island.

Fit- If I had to guess, it's likely the computer system of the Federation offices.

Fit- If I tried to break in and access the data, they would likely capture me...

Fit- It would not end well.

Fit- However, whoever wins this election will likely have open access.

Fit- Perhaps they could be persuaded... Or tricked into giving us access.

Fit- I will fullfil the contract.

Fit- And yet... I'm starting to wonder....

Fit- What are you actually trying to achieve?

Fit- Even if I can access the data, what good would it do?

Fit- I'm skeptical, but I hope to hear from you soon........

(This island...... Is worse than I thought....)

(Text appears on screen.

Windows XP

Task failed successfully.

[OK] )

(A cinematic showing various scenes from QSMP and 2B2T play. All the images from the former are in full colour, while all the images from the latter are in black and white. A video of a capybara eating grass plays. It is in black and white.)

If I left anything particularly important out, let me know!

[sgiandubh]

Hi! Hope you had a nice Sunday so far. Fitness Anon here.

Everyone is horrified and disgusted by the latest pap walk and the woman who was chosen for it. Probably the reason for this is that actually it is very clear what kind of profession this woman has. She is an escort girl.

Let's put it this way: the other initial girls (e.g. MM, MC, AM) in the past were also hired, paid and used for a special kind of service. They all had to sign a contract and were obliged to fulfil their contractual obligations. And in return they all were paid or received other benefits.The only difference was that they were labelled as an actress or a model. But in the discussions here they were called beards. And the purpose of their use was exactly the same as this time. 

Apart from that, one could also ask how to characterise the type of agreement made with T? He is paid to pretend to provide services for C. Is it not the same as pretending to be S’s girlfriend? And everyone here more or less agrees that T is being a paid help, too.

Are people here so engrossed right now because this time it is quite obvious what was previously carried out in a rather hidden manner?

Dear (returning) Fitness Anon,

There have been others. Some with names, others - without a name or a bio, fleeting specters across a blurry screen. But spare one or two mysteries (Nobu gal, tattoo gal, etc), all of them had at least a honorable pretext on their business cards. Wannabe is not disgust-inducing, but a prostitute, weeeell....

This time, the unfortunate connection with the seedy demi-monde was obvious from the start, then substantiated. Add to this the hand holding - not a pretty picture. At all. Call me an idiot, but I think that gave many people pause, across the dash. Especially when the whole rest of the pic looked so artificially and hastily cobbled up.

By contrast, C is sheltered by her grotesque marriage fic. Irrespective of paperwork.

[heavenlyhischier]

𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐞 - 𝐣𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐡𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬 (𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞)

one two

word count: 2.7k

chapter summary: your friendship takes a leap in the right direction.

warnings: description of a panic attack, i think like three cuss words maybe, jumping off a cliff but for fun not for harm,

note: here is part three!! this was uploaded on my phone so let me know if there’s any issues.

tags: @estapa94 @cherrylipscrystal-skies

Everyone was quick to move past Jack’s brief scene, not wanting to succumb to the awkwardness that was likely to ensue if they hadn’t. Luke had thrown you one of the saddles they had on the boat so you could float around instead of wading through the water on your own. The boys started doing back flips off the boat, ignoring you as you yelled at them to be careful because you were not going to take care of them if they broke their neck. You knew you would, though, and they knew it too.

It was hard to not notice the quiet argument that was happening between Jack and Natalie as they wallowed in the water a ways away from everyone else. Whatever it was, you could tell that it had Jack on the defense as his eyes were narrowed and brows stitched together. Though Natalie looked less upset, sporting a solemn and understanding look on her face as she spoke.

“Wonder what they’re arguing about,” Cole’s voice tore you away from the pair. Him and the others had formed a lopsided circle near you.

“No telling. He’s been kind of a jackass to her this whole time,” Quinn pointed out, “And it hasn’t even been a full twenty-four hours yet.”

The six of you let out airy laughs, mouths snapping shut when you noticed the pair swimming towards you. They both looked fine, so you assumed that their discussion wasn’t about anything too detrimental. You hoped it wasn’t. There was already enough tension on this trip as it is.

“Ready to go jump,” Alex asked, jerking his head towards the cliff.

A round of agreements were muttered, with only Jack and Natalie politely declining the trip. You didn’t miss the way the others passed you knowing looks, and they didn’t miss the way you briefly tensed as you recognized that it would only be the three of you down at the boat. You were absolutely not ready for that.

“Let’s go,” You rushed out, tossing the saddle back on the boat as you swam towards the bank. Were you running away? Maybe. But you think you would rather jump off a cliff than be around the two of them alone.

You heard the other boys swimming behind you, their quiet conversation slightly reaching your ears but not enough for you to fully make out what they were saying. Climbing up on the rocky beach, you stared at the path you had to take in order to get up to the top. Fear crawled across your skin as you began regretting your decision to tag along.

“You can still go back,” Quinn reminded, water dripping off his body.

“Nope. She can’t,” Trevor called out before shaking water out of his hair, “She’s contractually obligated to jump now.”

You peered around Quinn to give Trevor the middle finger, but instead you were met with the sight of Jack swimming towards the rest of you. Natalie was climbing back up on the boat, but you couldn’t tell if she was upset or not due to the distance between you.

“Trevor’s right,” You met Quinn’s surprised stare, slight panic in your eyes, “I’m going.”

“You guys go ahead, I’ll wait for Jack,” Alex waved, hands on his hips as he watched his friend approach the rest of you.

You held your arm out, signaling for one of the boys to go in front of you. Luke decided to take the lead, passing his oldest brother a brief look as he took your hand and guided you to the top of the cliff. He kept your hand in his own, and a part of you briefly wondered what it would be like if you dated Luke. However, the thought was gone as soon as it came. It was too weird to think about.

Once you had reached the top, your heart felt like it was going to explode. You hated heights, and that combined with the fear of something happening to you when you hit the water was enough to make you stop in your tracks. The world around you spun, blood pounding in your ears and hands shaking as you slowly backed away from the edge. It felt as if your chest was going to cave in on itself. Sounds of the boys calling your name echoed around you, but you couldn’t bring yourself to reach out to them.

You’re not sure how long it had been when a pair of calloused hands delicately grasped your shoulders, your dizzying gaze falling on Jack as he stood in front of you. Your name tumbled from his lips, but all you could focus on was how hard it was to breathe. It felt like someone was clutching your throat, yet you knew that the only person around was the one person who truly knew what was going on.

“Hey,” Jack’s tone was soft and careful as it echoed around you, “Look at me, okay? Try and focus on me.”

You managed a slight nod, letting out strangled breaths as you watched him. The world around him was blurry and unfocused, so you did what you could to only look at him. You could feel the presence and the stares from the other boys around you, but they were soon forgotten as Jack instructed you to count backwards from ten with him. It was a task he knew would distract you from your thoughts, and help you regain control of your breathing.

“We’re not going to let anything happen to you,” He assured, his hands coming to your own. He softly pulled your fingers away from your palm, and placed your hands on either of his cheeks. He was grounding you back to the present. “You’re safe, you know that?”

“I’m safe,” You repeated, taking note of how warm his cheeks were from the sun beating down on everyone, “I’m safe.”

The boys watched with anxious eyes as Jack brought you back, their own hearts slowing as you started to recover. They’ve never seen you have a panic attack before and it terrified them. Guilt settled in Trevor’s chest as he watched his best friend calm you down and wipe away at the tears that were streaming down your cheeks. He shouldn’t have pressured you into coming.

“I know you were trying to get away from me by coming up here,” He whispered, gaze staying on you, “But I needed to make sure you were going to be okay if you jumped. Even if you hate me because I fucked up, you’re still my best friend and I needed to know you were going to be okay.”

Letting out a small breath, you couldn’t help but lightly smile at his admission. Your heart fluttering as you registered just how close he was to you, but you harshly brought yourself back to the gut wrenching reality that he had a girl waiting for him on the boat.

“I’m sorry,” You mumbled, reluctantly dropping your hands from his face and glancing around at the others. They sent small, comforting smiles in your direction before turning away. “I’m sorry you came all the way up here for me. I should’ve just stayed down there.

“You don’t have anything to be sorry about,” Jack reiterated, “Especially when it has to do with making sure you’re okay. You still sure you want to jump down? I’ll walk back down with you. It’s okay.”

You contemplated his proposal, eyes darting between the path back down and the edge of the cliff. On one hand, you could make the safe trek back down to the bank and swim back to the boat to watch the boys jump down. On another, you could face your fear head on with the comfort of knowing that the boys would do anything in their power to keep you safe.

“I’ll jump,” You nodded, determination briefly flickering in your eyes before you weakly continued, “But will someone jump with me?”

You watched as all of their mouths dropped open to respond, but Jack was quick to offer himself up before they even had a chance. While you were still upset with him, you knew that pushing him away, especially after what had just happened, was pointless. He was your best friend and you couldn’t just give that up. You will just have to push your feelings for him aside and do your best to go back to normal.

“Who wants to go first,” Alex asked before pointing at you, “You wanna go ahead and get it out of the way?”

You vigorously shook your head, “No. I want someone down there just in case.”

Despite not knowing just how deep rooted your fear was, they had zero objections and asked no questions. They quickly began bickering with each other for a few minutes. Quinn let out an annoyed groan before he took off, his body disappearing as he fell. Your heart raced as you waited to hear his voice from down below, panic settling back in your veins the longer you went without hearing him. It was only when you heard him yelling at the others that you let out the deep breath you had been holding.

“Hey,” Jack gently squeezed your hand, “It’s still not too late to say no.”

“I know, but I want to do it. I feel like he would want me to,” You admitted, a somber look taking over as you thought about your dad.

“I feel like he would, too,” He smiled, “Ready to do this?”

After Jack told you what to expect and what to do when you hit the water, the two of you lined up per Trevor’s instruction. Nerves ran through your veins at top speed, but all you could think about was how your dad would have wanted you to live your life to the fullest and not in fear. You were going to do this for him.

With a nod to your best friend, you both took off towards the edge and threw your bodies as far away from the cliff as you could. Wind clawed through your hair and at your skin as you plummeted down, but the feeling was gone as soon as you collided with the water. You had kept your eyes closed and took a deep breath before you plunged down just like Jack told you, but a bout of terror took hold as you blindly flung your limbs around underneath the surface.

A pair of hands wrapped around your arm, yanking you up and out of the water. You immediately clung to your savior, eyes clenched shut as you struggled to let air into your lungs.

“You did it,” Jack whispered in your ear, an arm wrapping around your waist to keep you close. He hoped you couldn’t hear how hard his heart was beating as you stuck yourself to him.

His breath was warm on your neck, making your already flushed cheeks turn an even deeper red. His touch lit your skin on fire in the best way possible, but guilt immediately took over as you caught a glimpse of the boat nearby.

“I did it,” You mustered a pathetic grin, pushing yourself away from him. You missed the way he instinctively reached out to pull you back. He missed the way you gazed at him as if he was the only person in the world.

Nearly four hours later and back at the house, everyone retreated to their rooms to shower and take naps before the night began. Quinn had watched as Jack’s jaw clenched while he watched you and the youngest Hughes race upstairs to see who was going to shower first. He shook his head as he thought about just how stupid Jack was, but he chose to stay quiet and go back up to his own room.

The sound of the front door shutting woke you, eliciting an annoyed groan as you rolled over and squeezed your eyes shut, trying to force the sleep back. You mentally cursed whoever it was that had shut the door knowing that you weren’t going to be able to fall back asleep. You’ve always been a light sleeper, and once you were awake, you weren’t falling back to sleep anytime soon.

Luke’s light snores were heard from beside you, letting you know that he was still sound asleep. Not wanting to wake him up, you slipped out of the bed and carefully opened the door before heading downstairs to find something to eat. The house was quiet, save for someone walking around downstairs, and still, and that alone was enough to let you know that at least Trevor and Cole were still asleep. They caused pure chaos when they weren’t.

Rubbing at your groggy eyes, you tripped over the bottom step and stumbled forwards. You hold your hands out as a way to steady yourself before glancing around the room to see if anyone had seen you, but the living room was empty. Slight confusion settled in because you know you heard someone down here, but both the kitchen and living room held no signs of life outside of you.

“Whatever,” You grumbled to yourself, pulling the fridge door open to see if there was anything you wanted to eat.

The fridge let you down as most of its contents were alcohol and ingredients for actual meals, and you weren’t really in the mood to cook. Moving to the cabinets, you noticed slight movement on the dock from your peripheral vision. Jack sat on the edge of the wooden platform, legs hanging above the water and eyes trained on the sight in front of him. The idea of eating was long forgotten now as you slipped outside and made your way towards him.

The sound of your feet padding across the wood was far from quiet, but he didn’t make a point to turn around and see who it was. You could tell that something was bothering him, and you almost convinced yourself to turn around and leave it alone, but you couldn’t. No matter what he had put you through, you would always be there for each other. He was there for you on the cliff and you’d be there for him now.

“You okay,” You softly questioned as you settled down a few inches away from him.

“Natalie left,” He let out a dry chuckle, looking down as he picked at his fingers.

You lightly hummed, hands gripping the edge of the dock and stare focused on the ripples of the water as you thought of what to say. “What happened? Did we not make her feel welcome? I’m sorry- I should’ve been more friendly towards her since we were the only girls. I should have tr-”

“It’s not that,” He interrupted, finally letting his focus find you. Your hair was falling in your face and you sported a sleepy look that had him smiling to himself, “Everyone, especially you, made her feel included, except for me. She said it was clear that other things meant more to me, but she’s not really mad at me. She just wishes I wouldn’t have led her on, and also she hopes that I'm able to ‘get my head out of my ass and man up’.”

You furrowed your brows together and sucked your bottom lip in between your teeth, trying to piece together what she could have meant. It didn’t make sense to you, but it seemed to make some sort of sense to Jack and that was all that mattered.

“Are you upset,” You finally asked, turning to look at him.

He was already looking at you, his gaze soft as he took you in. You were looking up at him, pupils blown and lips parted as you waited for his response. His eyes darted to your lips, but the look was so swift that you’re not sure if you had imagined it or not.

“No, I don’t think I am.”

hopefully this doesn’t suck lmao. next part will be the last part

four

[tumblhurgoyf]

Can you explain for my friend why wotc actions after the leak are bad?

This is gonna be a bit lengthy but first I want to establish a timeline. Note the only real info we have is from the Youtuber in question, so it's not unreasonable that some of this is wrong, either intentionally or just because this guy likewise doesn't know all of what happened.

A Youtuber with about 5000 subscribers, oldschoolmtg, ordered booster boxes of March of the Machine.

2. The person he ordered them from mistakenly gave him boxes of March of the Machine: Aftermath.

3. oldschoolmtg cracked the Aftermath packs and posted videos of that online. It does sound like he was aware of difference between MOM and MOM Aftermath before he posted the videos. He said he doesn't believe the person who sold them was aware as that person isn't really into Magic (I personally know a store like this--the owner is really into Warhammer but does Magic stuff too because it pays bills).

4. Wizards says they tried to contact him but couldn't reach him. As far as I know we have no context for how they tried to contact him, how many attempts they made, or how long they waited before hiring the Pinkertons to shake him down.

5. I believe Sunday April 25 in the morning the Pinkertons showed up at this guy's house to recover "stolen" product. They threatened jail time and the Youtuber refers to them as "law men" in his video so I'm not sure if he misunderstands their role or if they misrepresented themselves.

6. After getting the cards, the Pinkerton agents provided a phone number to a person at Wizards for oldschoolmtg to call. He said this person was apologetic and cordial and said they don't believe anything was stolen but they needed the product so they could figure out how this happened to prevent it in the future. oldschoolmtg also says they said they'd send him some product to compensate for the cards the Pinkertons just took from him.

7. oldschoolmtg removed the Youtube videos of him opening the Aftermath packs. They also asked him to ask everyone else to take those vids down, claiming some sort of copyright infringement.

That's all the info I'm aware of, mostly just straight from the person who experienced this.

So why is this wrong?

First, MOM Aftermath is an embargoed product. Which means Wizards ships it out to retailers (be they big box store or LGS or online space or whatever) under a contract that they won't sell it before a certain date and time. oldschoolmtg believes the person he purchased from simply mixed up the two sets because of the similar names. He says he purchased the product and according to his recollection of the phone call, the rep at Wizards likewise didn't think he had stolen it.

That's important because the embargo agreement is between retailers and Wizards. oldschoolmtg had no contractual obligation with regard to the embargoed product. It leads me to believe the Pinkertons were involved because they'd willingly insinuate the product was stolen and oldschoolmtg had committed a crime when in actuality there was no grounds to take any legal action against the man. There was no grounds to get a warrant to search for the product. He had committed no crime. He bought Magic cards from a guy who sells Magic cards. The only actual recourse Wizards would have had if the cards weren't stolen was to pursue the guy who sold them for breaking the embargo.

The only theft that actually occurred was when the Pinkertons raided this guy's home to take cards he purchased.

That's my take given what info we know. The Youtube videos aren't actually relevant in a meaningful way--that's just how Wizards found out.

But it's actually even worse. It would have been shitty to seek out a warrant or just sic lawyers on him. Of course I don't think they had grounds for it, so instead they went extrajudicial instead. That is they took a course of action that didn't involve courts.

For those who don't know, the Pinkertons started in 1850 and operated largely as violent strikebreakers. They're still helping break strikes today. They've been hired by Amazon and Starbucks within the last three years to spy on unionization efforts. Their history is bloody and murderous. No exaggeration. Their response to workers striking and unionizing in the past has been to beat them and shoot them.

I think you can put two and two together here. What does it say for a billion dollar multinational company to send these violent thugs to the private home of a small a guy operating a small Youtube channel?

It's a threat to this guy and anybody else; if you leak our cards we will find where you live and we will come after you. Specific use of the Pinkertons is part of this intentional message. There are other security firms without the history and notoriety. And while any such action would be just as disturbing, I doubt using almost any other agency would have had quite the effect as hiring Pinkertons.

tl;dr Based on what we know it's unlikely this guy did anything actually wrong or unlawful and Wizards sent agents from a firm with a violent and notorious history to his home in an act of intimidation

[paranorahjones]

im probably poking the bear but whatever, but i just wanna say that i'm kind of glad that i stopped participating in the Lockwood & Co. fandom very much at the time that i did. seeing folks attack the people who are feeling burnt out from the campaign to save the show is so discouraging. y'all do realize that's a real thing, right? fandom is meant to be a community of people brought together by one thing: their shared love of art. it is NOT a contractual agreement or an obligation to do a single thing.

y'all need to chill. just because people are experiencing burn out does not mean that they love the series any less than you do and your behavior is actively pushing people further away from wanting anything to do with you and your campaign.

[acowardinmordor]

Contractual Obligation

The plan went perfectly, is the thing. TMZ got the scoop, Tiktok had hundreds of reaction videos in the first few hours. They were trending on Twitter. Which was good. Steve would get his pay day, Eddie would get past the rumors and back to the good press, back to the path towards platinum records. According to the plan, Eddie would even have new ideas and inspiration for his next album.

It was only five months. Long enough for the gossips to pick it up, long enough to be a big deal, not long enough that anyone would expect Eddie to be too broken up about it.

Steve torched all his social media accounts a few hours after TMZ posted the story. He had to. The handful of messages and notifications he saw while deleting it all made his stomach flip. Once it calmed down a bit, he might make anonymous accounts again, if only so he could follow the kids and see the weird pictures of Robin's travels. Not with his own face though. Part of the agreement. Steve Harrington wasn't going to exist online as himself for a minimum of three years. That would keep anyone noticing that he got paid. It would also keep Steve from being torn apart by Eddie's fans.

It wasn't like he had to worry about money for a while. That was why he signed the contract with the PR firm. They needed to erase the memory of his slut era - capped off with photos of Eddie in a decadent orgy - show that Eddie Munson was capable of a committed relationship, and then get him single again. His sales were better when he was single, and being seen on celebrity dates was great for PR. They needed someone to play a part to make the change.

Steve's dad hadn't cut him off or thrown him out for being queer, or for how he got GNC when the mood struck. No, Richard Harrington was a proud liberal supporter, and didn't give a damn about any of that. But Steve flunked out of his degree in business at Richard's alma mater, and that was unforgivable.

So he was working days at an amazon warehouse, and overnight at a 24 hour diner in Chicago, because he needed money to keep his crappy studio. The PR team found him at the diner. Steve accepted the job and the contract without knowing who the hell Eddie Munson was. It was that much money. Steve really should have thought through the final phase of the contract before he signed. But it was almost a quarter million dollars for just under five months of work. "Work". Five months of dating a guy who permanently altered Steve's brain chemistry with his first smile.

Steve knew this was his fault. How he felt was his own fault. He wanted the money so he took the job, and he agreed to the terms. He went in with open eyes. Eddie didn't know Steve wasn't a genuine relationship. A real moment of serendipity that put them in the same place. Didn't know there was an end date inked and signed before they ever met. Steve agreed to this stupid fucking job because his parents cut him off and he wasn't used to having to budget for food and use coupons and hunt for deals to get phone service.

He may have flunked out in his junior year, but he was a business major. Steve read the contract and knew there was no getting around the financial penalty if he broke the terms. Seven fold repayment. How biblical of them.

He wasn't stupid. Eddie had the cash to cover the contract breach. And the inevitable court case over it. But Steve was stupid, and when he signed, he'd thought it wouldn't matter to either of them. Then Steve realized it mattered to him, but thought Eddie would be fine. He was a rockstar. Surrounded by friends. Endlessly laughing and happy. Eddie would get over Steve quick. It was just a couple months with some broke college drop out.

Then he saw Eddie's face three days ago when the rockstar found his boyfriend in bed with two models.

So yeah, Eddie had the cash, and maybe if Steve had told him from the start, he would have spent it, but now? Eddie didn't have a poker face. He walked into the scene set up by the PR team - Steve in bed with two peppy blonde models after standing Eddie up on a date - and Steve knew there was no way Eddie would cover anything. The truth could have helped early. Now that it was done? Telling Eddie the truth would only hurt him more.

All the stories were on Eddie's side. The firm made sure of that. Photos were already being 'found' by the gossip sites. Steve had been 'cheating' for weeks. Really had fucked both women that night to satisfy contractual obligation and to make sure Steve knew there was no fixing it. Steve had his fifteen minutes of fame, and the thing he'd be known for forever, was the guy who cheated on Eddie Munson.

His phone pinged with a message from one of the only two numbers saved to it. The way his chest soared and sank in the moment before his brain caught up was awful. Hope and fear, neither of which made sense.

Steve had deleted all of his socials. The PR firm had taken his old phone and disconnected the number. Now he had a brand new samsung, with one contact for the PR agent, and one for Robin. One was a threat, the other was a lifeline.

Robin's message was a calendar with her locations for the next month, and a link to AirFrance. It was a good idea. She was absolutely furious with him, and had been since he told her about the contract a month ago. She was still his best friend. Eddie was famous, but mostly an American celebrity. Steve could be a no one easier in Europe.

His phone, the one he handed over, had hundreds of contacts and thousands of messages and conversations across apps. Hundreds of photos of him and Eddie. Messages and voicemails and stupid jokes and memes.

This one had the default background, the default apps, and a single conversation in the messages. Robin was going to scream at him when she saw him, but she'd give him a hug first.

That was a better choice than sitting in the dark in his new apartment, which was too big, and too nice for crappy stuff they'd moved from his studio. He tapped the link she sent, and started looking for the first available flight.

[taviokapudding]

Protestors consistently ruining the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade footage is actually really great & keep boosting their footage when you see it

Every company featured in the parade sets up a contract (similar to the super bowl) where they buy a spot to then get a l a r g e endorsement via placing their ad on a float or in a balloon. Within the line up this year McDonald's, one of the biggest pro-genocide donators, got a large balloon rather than a float. This is important because balloons gets more air time than floats because of their size. On top of that floats may not have guests performing & paying for someone to perform; ideally McDonald's wanted to have a longer air time with their balloon without paying an hourly cost for performers. More air time = more ad revenue = more eyes seeing them = more customers.

The move by pro-Palestinian protestors to jump in front of McDonald's does 2 things:

1. McDonald's is getting less air time than what they were contractually promised, it'll be up to them to request what is owed (because it depends on the agreement made) by Macy's to them

2. And it messes with NBC's obligations with Peacock as the 2nd most important party of the parade + 3rd party in all contracts

So while McDonald's loses money and Macy's is scrambling to figure out how to loophole their way out of not losing money to owe McDonald's, NBC gets fucked too.

Since Oct 7, 2023, NBC has been one of many US news media outlets who actively lied to the US masses. But why do they matter for the parade? Their job is to be the main outlet who records and then uses their main platform, Peacock, to stream the parade. If protestors are seen throughout all your footage, delay large portions, and cause enough disruption to the footage being aired- that means they don't and won't immediately have their show footage ready to go.

Peacock does an offer every year to new customers to watch the parade for a $1.99 USD (not including taxes) monthly plan that can be canceled at any time with the first month free; but in the last 4+hrs after the parade aired people aren't going to stay for the year because their is no footage as promised. I actually have been checking throughout today and it's not available at all.

So not only is McDonald's going to be hemorrhaging alongside with all the other companies whose footage got cut or edited out to match the contractually obligated run time & censor protestors, but both NBC and Peacock will be losing money with each minute they don't have enough footage and a full stream to air- which is money that Macy's was also supposed to get a cut of. Which btw it's now 5pm cst the same day and there's still no footage - which is a $ problem for Peacock & NBC when folks prioritize now finding a service to watch the Superbowl > Parades.

Do not be surprised if Macy's stuff becomes more expensive and the possibility they'll change which news media outlet + streaming service covers the 2024 parade occurs. And yeah, McDonald's is going to become more expensive than it already is long term. Everybody who were financially complicit in the death of 14,000+ Palestinian men, women, and children will have a financially shit end of the year and rough 2024.

In short, despite the arrests, the protestors who sat & glued themselves to the parade route and those who stayed in the crowd to hold up flags and signs throughout really won. A 4 day cease fire for a very obviously one sided genocide isn't enough & tons of rich people are learning the hard way (as I post) that this is the beginning of their punishment by the universe for the actions.

[dailyanarchistposts]

A.2.11 Why are most anarchists in favour of direct democracy?

For most anarchists, direct democratic voting on policy decisions within free associations is the political counterpart of free agreement (this is also known as “self-management”). The reason is that “many forms of domination can be carried out in a ‘free.’ non-coercive, contractual manner… and it is naive… to think that mere opposition to political control will in itself lead to an end of oppression.” [John P. Clark, Max Stirner’s Egoism, p. 93] Thus the relationships we create within an organisation is as important in determining its libertarian nature as its voluntary nature (see section A.2.14 for more discussion).

It is obvious that individuals must work together in order to lead a fully human life. And so, ”[h]aving to join with others humans” the individual has three options: “he [or she] must submit to the will of others (be enslaved) or subject others to his will (be in authority) or live with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity.” [Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 85]

Anarchists obviously pick the last option, association, as the only means by which individuals can work together as free and equal human beings, respecting the uniqueness and liberty of one another. Only within direct democracy can individuals express themselves, practice critical thought and self-government, so developing their intellectual and ethical capacities to the full. In terms of increasing an individual’s freedom and their intellectual, ethical and social faculties, it is far better to be sometimes in a minority than be subject to the will of a boss all the time. So what is the theory behind anarchist direct democracy?

As Bertrand Russell noted, the anarchist “does not wish to abolish government in the sense of collective decisions: what he does wish to abolish is the system by which a decision is enforced upon those who oppose it.” [Roads to Freedom, p. 85] Anarchists see self-management as the means to achieve this. Once an individual joins a community or workplace, he or she becomes a “citizen” (for want of a better word) of that association. The association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood). In this assembly, in concert with others, the contents of his or her political obligations are defined. In acting within the association, people must exercise critical judgement and choice, i.e. manage their own activity. Rather than promising to obey (as in hierarchical organisations like the state or capitalist firm), individuals participate in making their own collective decisions, their own commitments to their fellows. This means that political obligation is not owed to a separate entity above the group or society, such as the state or company, but to one’s fellow “citizens.”

Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated “citizens” constitute a political “authority”, but as this “authority” is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the “authority” is non-hierarchical (“rational” or “natural,” see section B.1 — “Why are anarchists against authority and hierarchy?” — for more on this). Thus Proudhon:

“In place of laws, we will put contracts [i.e. free agreement]. — No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws.” [The General Idea of the Revolution, pp. 245–6]

Such a system does not mean, of course, that everyone participates in every decision needed, no matter how trivial. While any decision can be put to the assembly (if the assembly so decides, perhaps prompted by some of its members), in practice certain activities (and so purely functional decisions) will be handled by the association’s elected administration. This is because, to quote a Spanish anarchist activist, “a collectivity as such cannot write a letter or add up a list of figures or do hundreds of chores which only an individual can perform.” Thus the need “to organise the administration.” Supposing an association is “organised without any directive council or any hierarchical offices” which “meets in general assembly once a week or more often, when it settles all matters needful for its progress” it still “nominates a commission with strictly administrative functions.” However, the assembly “prescribes a definite line of conduct for this commission or gives it an imperative mandate” and so “would be perfectly anarchist.” As it “follows that delegating these tasks to qualified individuals, who are instructed in advance how to proceed, … does not mean an abdication of that collectivity’s own liberty.” [Jose Llunas Pujols, quoted by Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 187] This, it should be noted, follows Proudhon’s ideas that within the workers’ associations “all positions are elective, and the by-laws subject to the approval of the members.” [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 222]

Instead of capitalist or statist hierarchy, self-management (i.e. direct democracy) would be the guiding principle of the freely joined associations that make up a free society. This would apply to the federations of associations an anarchist society would need to function. “All the commissions or delegations nominated in an anarchist society,” correctly argued Jose Llunas Pujols, “must be subject to replacement and recall at any time by the permanent suffrage of the section or sections that elected them.” Combined with the “imperative mandate” and “purely administrative functions,” this “make[s] it thereby impossible for anyone to arrogate to himself [or herself] a scintilla of authority.” [quoted by Max Nettlau, Op. Cit., pp. 188–9] Again, Pujols follows Proudhon who demanded twenty years previously the “implementation of the binding mandate” to ensure the people do not “adjure their sovereignty.” [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 63]

By means of a federalism based on mandates and elections, anarchists ensure that decisions flow from the bottom-up. By making our own decisions, by looking after our joint interests ourselves, we exclude others ruling over us. Self-management, for anarchists, is essential to ensure freedom within the organisations so needed for any decent human existence.

Of course it could be argued that if you are in a minority, you are governed by others (“Democratic rule is still rule” [L. Susan Brown, The Politics of Individualism, p. 53]). Now, the concept of direct democracy as we have described it is not necessarily tied to the concept of majority rule. If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured (“Individual autonomy limited by the obligation to hold given promises.” [Malatesta, quoted by quoted by Max Nettlau, Errico Malatesta: The Biography of an Anarchist]). Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.

And we must point out here that anarchist support for direct democracy does not suggest we think that the majority is always right. Far from it! The case for democratic participation is not that the majority is always right, but that no minority can be trusted not to prefer its own advantage to the good of the whole. History proves what common-sense predicts, namely that anyone with dictatorial powers (by they a head of state, a boss, a husband, whatever) will use their power to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of those subject to their decisions.

Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making. Thus Carole Pateman:

“If the majority have acted in bad faith… [then the] minority will have to take political action, including politically disobedient action if appropriate, to defend their citizenship and independence, and the political association itself… Political disobedience is merely one possible expression of the active citizenship on which a self-managing democracy is based … The social practice of promising involves the right to refuse or change commitments; similarly, the practice of self-assumed political obligation is meaningless without the practical recognition of the right of minorities to refuse or withdraw consent, or where necessary, to disobey.” [The Problem of Political Obligation, p. 162]

Moving beyond relationships within associations, we must highlight how different associations work together. As would be imagined, the links between associations follow the same outlines as for the associations themselves. Instead of individuals joining an association, we have associations joining confederations. The links between associations in the confederation are of the same horizontal and voluntary nature as within associations, with the same rights of “voice and exit” for members and the same rights for minorities. In this way society becomes an association of associations, a community of communities, a commune of communes, based upon maximising individual freedom by maximising participation and self-management.

The workings of such a confederation are outlined in section A.2.9 ( What sort of society do anarchists want?) and discussed in greater detail in section I (What would an anarchist society look like?).

This system of direct democracy fits nicely into anarchist theory. Malatesta speaks for all anarchists when he argued that “anarchists deny the right of the majority to govern human society in general.” As can be seen, the majority has no right to enforce itself on a minority — the minority can leave the association at any time and so, to use Malatesta’s words, do not have to “submit to the decisions of the majority before they have even heard what these might be.” [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 100 and p. 101] Hence, direct democracy within voluntary association does not create “majority rule” nor assume that the minority must submit to the majority no matter what. In effect, anarchist supporters of direct democracy argue that it fits Malatesta’s argument that:

“Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many … But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must be on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and of goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm…” [Op. Cit., p. 100]

As the minority has the right to secede from the association as well as having extensive rights of action, protest and appeal, majority rule is not imposed as a principle. Rather, it is purely a decision making tool which allows minority dissent and opinion to be expressed (and acted upon) while ensuring that no minority forces its will on the majority. In other words, majority decisions are not binding on the minority. After all, as Malatesta argued:

“one cannot expect, or even wish, that someone who is firmly convinced that the course taken by the majority leads to disaster, should sacrifice his [or her] own convictions and passively look on, or even worse, should support a policy he [or she] considers wrong.” [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 132]

Even the Individual Anarchist Lysander Spooner acknowledged that direct democracy has its uses when he noted that ”[a]ll, or nearly all, voluntary associations give a majority, or some other portion of the members less than the whole, the right to use some limited discretion as to the means to be used to accomplish the ends in view.” However, only the unanimous decision of a jury (which would “judge the law, and the justice of the law”) could determine individual rights as this “tribunal fairly represent[s] the whole people” as “no law can rightfully be enforced by the association in its corporate capacity, against the goods, rights, or person of any individual, except it be such as all members of the association agree that it may enforce” (his support of juries results from Spooner acknowledging that it “would be impossible in practice” for all members of an association to agree) [Trial by Jury, p. 130-1f, p. 134, p. 214, p. 152 and p. 132]

Thus direct democracy and individual/minority rights need not clash. In practice, we can imagine direct democracy would be used to make most decisions within most associations (perhaps with super-majorities required for fundamental decisions) plus some combination of a jury system and minority protest/direct action and evaluate/protect minority claims/rights in an anarchist society. The actual forms of freedom can only be created through practical experience by the people directly involved.

Lastly, we must stress that anarchist support for direct democracy does not mean that this solution is to be favoured in all circumstances. For example, many small associations may favour consensus decision making (see the next section on consensus and why most anarchists do not think that it is a viable alternative to direct democracy). However, most anarchists think that direct democracy within free association is the best (and most realistic) form of organisation which is consistent with anarchist principles of individual freedom, dignity and equality.

[the-fae-folk]

How do marriages between faeries and humans come to be? What could fae possibly gain from marrying a human in the first place?

Well they could gain quite a lot of different things from it.

If they're cruel and view humans as things rather than people, they could gain a toy, or a slave, or a trophy.

But if they truly love the human, it's very rare but it does happen sometimes, then they can gain a partner, a friend, a companion.

It all really depends on the faerie in question. And the circumstances in which they are marrying a human. Remember that the Folk must generally obey any contractual agreement that they enter, they are bound to it. While there are a very few instances in traditional folklore where the faerie-like being cheats or disregards an agreement or promise they made, an overbearing percentage of the time multiple cultures depict these faerie-beings as being forced to abide by the terms of the contract.

No matter how many semantic ideals humans layer on top of the concept of marriage, it is still an institutional practice which has a contractual agreement at its core. While the definitions and practices surrounding marriage vary from culture to culture, its general point is to lay the rights, obligations, boundaries, and protections between the two parties as well as their families, and their children if they happen to have any. It is a way of protecting oneself from harm. It could be future harm such as someone leaving you to fend for yourself if you have an accident that cripples you, financial harm if you lose all your money to a thief and without your partner you would be on the streets, or emotional harm if you need someone you can trust and your partner decides to betray that trust. The method of protecting against this, at least a little, is the marriage and its outline of what you agreed to do.

While the exact forms might vary between cultures, what you will need to look for is the places where you will be making some kind of contractual agreement. Often this takes the form of a Marriage License, Prenuptial Agreement, Wedding Vows, or some combination or variation of these.

For the more legal side of things you could have an agreement over such details as: Who may have control of or a say in the other's wealth, property, or business dealings. Joint responsibility for debts. Visitation rights if one member is incarcerated or hospitalized. Control over each other's affairs if they are incapacitated somehow. Establishing the right of legal guardianship over any children conceived in or brought into the marriage. Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of any children.

There may even be additions to this depending on cultural nuances, such as establishing certain relationships between the families of the spouses, or obligations required of them as a family unit. And this is all if the actual marrying couple is entirely in control of their own situation. In some cultures a family or a family member could choose your partner for you, and you could be forced into a marriage you didn't want as long as someone who had control of your rights agreed to the terms of the contract for you.

When it comes to vows made during a ceremony usually different kinds of promises are made, though they often still have some roots in practicality. Wedding vows are not universal and are mainly rooted in the traditions of Western Christianity, though they've had larger influence on Western Culture as a whole than some would think. Most western traditions derive from the Sarum rite of Medieval England.

Man's Vow: I [Name] take the [Name] to my weddyd wyf, to have and to hold fro thys day forwarde, for better for wors, for richer for porer, in sikenesse and in helthe, tyl deth us departe, yf holy Chyrche wyl it ordeyne; and thereto I plyght the my trouthe.

(I [Name] take [Name] to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold for the days forward, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part, if the holy Church will it ordain; and thereto I pledge thee my troth.)

Woman's Vow: I [Name] take the [Name] to my weddyd husbonde, to have and to hold fro thys day forwarde, for better for wurs, for richere, for porer, in sikenesse and in helthe, to be bonoure and buxum in bed and at bord, tyll deth us departe, yf holy Chyrche wyl it ordeyne; and therto I plyght the my trouth.

(I [Name] take the [Name] to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold for the days forward, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to be bonere and buxum in bed and at board, till death do us part, if the holy Church will it ordain; and thereto I pledge thee my troth.)

((side note: The phrase "To be bonere and buxum in bed and at board" is a matter of some contention. Bonere means to be gracious or gentle, and buxum means to be obedient. While some have interpreted this as a reference on how the wife will conduct sexual practices within the marriage, it is important to remember that bed and board is an idiomatic phrase that refers both to the place where one sleeps and gets a daily meal, as well as to the house as a symbol of the duties and sanctity of marriage. This suggests that one could interpret the phrase as meaning they are making a vow to be gracious and obedient in the marriage as a whole, as well as to remain faithful to their husband.))

As time has passed the actual form of the vows has changed, but should one wish to use the formal vows, their original form is still recognizable if altered. These vows, while not universal and not necessarily legally binding, are still a kind of agreement being made for the marriage. To be there for one another and to honor the other, to stay whether the partner gets sick or not, to stay if they're rich or poor, and to remain with the other faithfully until mortal death. As in the case of the original set of vows, many make this set of agreements directly under the authority and witnessing of their religious organization, effectively making their deity the highest authority and the one who is allowed to revoke any blessings, privileges, or rights to the marriage should either one break the agreement without getting an annulment from the church itself.

Before this kind of wedding vow, one might have found traditions like handfasting, where a couple would take hands and declare themselves then and there as husband and wife (sponsalia de praesenti form), or alternatively they could declare their intention to marry one another at a future date (sponsalia de futuro form) and then seal the marriage through sexual intercourse. Often what little ceremony found could be done, or was done, with an authority or witnesses to the marriage. However it was not always considered legally necessary. From the 12th century to the 17th it was considered a form of engagement to be married, which would then be followed by an official ceremony in Church. However the practice is much older than that and is thought to be derived from the Old Norse handfesta which is literally "to strike a bargain by joining hands".

This idea of bargaining, of contractual agreements, vows, pledges, and promises is so integral to our ideas of marriage that it's difficult to separate them, and maybe not entirely possible. It is there that you can try to understand what it is the Faerie Folk want from the union. What is it that is being agreed to? And by whom? What do they get out of the things promised, what is the exact wording given and what does all of it mean within the specific context and cultures you and your faerie spouse find yourselves in? It is no small task, of course, considering how tangled the history of faeries is with that of contracts and bargains, but anything even remotely resembling a marriage will definitely come with strings attached when they are involved with it.

[tulipscomeinallsortsofcolors]

In terms of fae inheritance, what would the next of kin inherit?

i am Once Again going to be entirely too invested in fae legal minutiae

a list of things that might be inherited by next of kin upon the death of a fae

the ""rights" to the land on which the deceased lived - fae do not "own" land in the traditional sense. they mark out territory they live on and cultivate and then defend it. someone may oust them, and they can go to Virgil and claim a sort of.... stewardships rights ("i cared for these plants, built this home, etc"). but if they are, say, one fae hoarding an inordinate amount of territory, virgil may cede some of it to the "invading" party citing necessity. these stewardship rights are what are inherited, and subsequently lost if the land is not stewarded correctly. fae believe they owe the earth they live on as much as it "belongs" to them

debts and favors in both directions: this is why fae cant just kill anyone they owe a debt to - now, they just owe it to the next of kin, who will presumably enact a much steeper price since you just offed their mom

similarly, "contractual" agreements. if the butterfly pixies and the yarrow sprites have an agreement on the "borders" of their territory, upon the death of the leader the heir cant just rescind it. they inherit that obligation as surely as if they'd negotiated it themself

physical possessions - this ones a little more straightforward. jewelry, weapons, clothing, and other personal possession are probably what we would consider the closest thing to traditional property rights. technically, on their heir inherits these things, but it is exceedingly rare for that heir to not distribute these among their siblings/other family. HOWEVER the main difference is that since fae have such a huge gift giving culture, if a fae parent wants a particular child to have something of theirs, they will rarely want that to happen only after theyre dead. why would they want this beloved thing to be bestowed on their child in the midst of grief? better to give it as a gift the moment you decide you want them to have it, so its a purely happy memory. Also, fae do NOT have estate sales or anything similar. if something isnt wanted by the heir and other family, it is ALWAYS given as a gift to friends or acquaintances. the idea of selling a deceased loved ones possessions is abhorrent, viewed as tantamount to putting a price on your memories of them. they would literally hand it to a stranger without speaking and walk away before they would sell it