Kerim Aydin wrote: > 6355 D 1 2.0 Yally Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements > AGAINST. Platonism bad.
I don't think this has the usual problems of platonism. For reference: > Proposal 6355 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Yally > Eliminate Annoying Judge Requirements > > Amend the paragraph of Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) reading: > > When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number > of rests have been created in the Accused's possession due to > the associated notice, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such > rests by announcement as soon as possible. > > to read: > > When a judicial question on culpability is judged after a number > of rests have been created in the Accused's posession due to the > associated notice, those rests are destroyed. In particular, the platonic mechanism is a DOES rather than a CAN, and the destruction of rests is tied to a message. In fact, the current wording is more platonically problematic than the proposed change: Suppose the judge makes a mistake about how many rests were created due to the associated notice, and claims to destroy (say) 4 rests instead of 2. Since e CAN only destroy 2, the announcement claiming to destroy 4 rests platonically did something different than it said, requiring gamestate recalculation if the error isn't discovered until later, after knock-on effects accumulate but before the Insulator's report ratifies. If you still don't like it, then please explain how the "platonism" of this situation is different from that of actions by announcement in general.
