4st wrote:
Right, but I'm not happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in.
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.
I think I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you'll make any headway by just saying "more people should be pragmatists because platonism is tedious". Either you have a majority-pragmatist player base or you don't, and as long as the rules continue to specify a certain level of platonism, swinging that pendulum will be an uphill battle. I think the majority of players are currently aiming for such a ratification, but only as a first step, to be followed by amending the rules to fix at least some of the tedium. Where you might make some more headway is to push that second step further, so that the rules /tell/ people to use a more pragmatic interpretation; I think even most platonists would accept that if it was adopted, similar to how they accept successful ratification rather than try to recompute whatever the ratification would paper over (unless it's believed to be gumming up the ratification process itself, as in the Points/Marks crisis, or the current debate).
