(TTttDF forward.) On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", in > the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification > failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a more > radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, but in > my opinion the reward is that it greatly increases simplicity and > certainty in what the effect of ratification actually is. > > I proposed something like this in July when I was arguing for > "ratification via closed timelike curves". At the time, Aris argued > that this makes complicated (see > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-July/055130.html > --- search for "Also, how is this a rules simplification?"). To be > fair, I had claimed in my that thread that what I was proposing was a > rules simplification, and in this case, I'm not exactly making that > argument. I'm arguing that it makes the rules simpler to understand, > even if it makes the text longer and forces us to describe different > cases explicitly. > > I am curious to hear people's opinions. I personally would be much more > comfortable if ratification worked like this, but I'm not sure others > will feel the same way. > > The bit added to Rule 2034 about setting the list of voters is rough; > probably it would be better to change the quorum rules to make it > clear that "number of voters" can be a fictional number associated > with a decision, and then in R2034 just say the number of voters is > set to whatever was indicated. > > > Title: Retroactive Events > AI: 3 > Chamber: Efficiency > Text: > > [Comment: The purpose of this proposal is to replace the "minimally > modified" language of Rule 1551 with something easier to determine. It > accomplishes this by replacing ratification of documents with > ratification of explicitly-specified events, which may be cumbersome to > use, but should be easier to interpret. It also eliminates the use of > ratifying "portions" of documents, which I think is was bit vaguely > specified.] >
This is certainly a hell of a lot simpler than the alternative. You've dealt pretty convincingly with my complaint about generality; it's not general, but it looks like the lack of generality doesn't actually turn out to be a big deal. I still think that this is potentially less fun than Alexis's proto. I'd really like to hear what Alexis thinks. This does certainly have a lot of aesthetic appeal and would be a lot easier to apply in practice... -Aris
