Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify
it.

----
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sprocklem S <sprock...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a
> > rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self
> > ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any
> > real risk.
>
> I'm not sure that holds up. Intentionally altering a ratifiable ruleset
> would constitute a rather grievous rule violation. On the other hand,
> infrequent or non-existent ratification of the ruleset could easily
> cause players to be unaware of the current state of the rules (through
> accidental bookkeeping mistakes, etc.). If the rulekeepor is willing to
> violate the rules anyways, they could publish a (partially) incorrect
> ruleset with the intent to deceive. They could even craft it so that
> they could later introduce a loophole using a proposal of the form:
>
>     Replace the text reading "..." with "...".
>
> or similar. It would result in them getting carded, but so would
> knowingly try to publish an incorrect self-ratifying ruleset.
>
> Additionally, a rulekeepor could just add the loophole and then ratify
> it manually, with some excuse ("we haven't ratified it in a while and I
> just want to make certain the rules are consistent" or whatever).
>
> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
> {{{
> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
> paragraph at the end:
>
> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
> }}}
>
> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
> rule-specific stuff.]
>
> --
> Sprocklem
>

Reply via email to