On 1/9/20 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Jason Cobb wrote: >> Sorry, but 4 days doesn't seem like enough here. If there's a CFJ on the >> scam, then even if everyone is acting LEGALLY, it could take up to two >> weeks to get a judgement. During that time, the scammer would have to do >> lots of stuff conditionally, which only furthers the gamestate >> confusion, and/or fend off the ratification attempts, which would >> require two other people to work with em, and I'd imagine people would >> quickly get tired of this. > I disagree here. The whole point of this method is to converge the > gamestate faster than a CFJ. In my view, we get "more tired" when we have > to do it by proposal or wait for CFJ - we lose a lot of momentum e.g. > if we're playing a game like spaceships, hit a bug/scam, then everyone says > "no point continuing to play when there's a reset coming". It's the long > pauses that kill gameplay in my experience. If we assume that the > ratification is a convergence (the end result doesn't depend on the truth of > the CFJ) this allows "getting on with the game" faster. > > The part about "two other conspirators" - well if there's that level of > resistance, you just shrug and say "I guess we have to do the Proposal route > anyway" and you don't lose much for trying the w/o 3 objection method first. > > -G. >
Oh, that makes a lot more sense now, thanks for explaining that. One more thing: this would allow (with few enough objections) retroactively erasing the scam by ratifying a document that states it is true before the scam took place. -- Jason Cobb
