On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:51 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-02-19 at 10:43 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > > fwiw, I plan to vote AGAINST any attempt to ratify the ruleset as the > > ruleset is currently as if we had been playing "correctly" this whole > time. > > > > As it currently stands, a vote FOR would be a vote to maintain the status > > quo that got the ruleset into its current predicament. > > The status quo is very platonic, and I don't want it to be. However, > that's > > an old debate: > > https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/XXXX-XX-XX-Vanyel.html > > I actually see ratification as a compromise between the pragmatists and > platonists – it's a way to allow both sides to agree on the gamestate. > Generally speaking, ratifications are to the advantage of pragmatists > because, whilst changing nothing from the pragmatic point of view, they > cause the platonic point of view to start agreeing with it. > So a vote FOR a ratification (assuming it's being done correctly) > basically means "sure, I'm happy to accept the gamestate we're > currently playing in". Right, but I'm not happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in. > A vote AGAINST only really makes sense if you > think that either something is wrong with the process of ratification, > or with the gamestate being ratified; or if you actively *want* > platonists to disagree with you about what the ruleset is. > Right, I agree with the platonists that the gamestate is wrong and that ratification is wrong, just... definitely not in the same sense of wrong. Wrong as in it feels wrong, whether or not anything is actually wrong. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
