On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all > the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about > due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we > try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is > part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them > self-ratify for most of them.
CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora. Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically have some sort of voting process accompanying them. It's also worth noting that commonly a CFJ will sometimes find that something is broken, and suggest fixing it; ratifying the brokenness is probably not ideal in that situation. FWIW, I've thought about this, and my preferred fix is to require CFJ judges to submit proposals that would, if they had been adopted before the situation the CFJ is asking about arose, have made the outcome of the CFJ obvious. That would mean that all relevant precedents would be in the Ruleset already, without requiring players to know all the judicial precedent to apply rule 217 correctly. This is similar to self-ratification but more flexible (you can use your mandated proposal for a fix rather than for a clarification), less dangerous (as the rules/gamestate changnes are still going through the normal proposal process), and more general (it's hard to set up ongoing effects with a ratification, but a proposal can do it just fine). -- ais523
