On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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 While what you’re saying is quite interesting, you’re not understanding me correctly. I was suggesting ratifying that the CFJ was judged TRUE, not the actual truth of the statement judged. It wouldn’t have any effect, it would just make sure the historical record of what the final judgement was is clear. The idea of giving CFJ findings binding status fills me with dread. -Aris > > >
