On Mon, 24 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-24 at 10:17 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Is Judgement enough of a Tenet of All Nomics that it should be > > put in the "Agora is a Nomic" rule, and say that Agora is also > > ossified if a judgement can't be obtained in a four-week period? > > I'd argue no, for two reasons: > > a) When using the Agoran style of CFJs, judgements could be handled as > an entirely informal process (or via a secondary legal code such as a > pledge or Organization) without really affecting the functioning of the > nomic. > [etc.]
All fine points! So do you think we should get rid of the R217 protection all together rather than amend it? Because I think it's pretty broken right now. First, because protecting the "initiation" is useless if you're trying to ensure some form of "justice". And if we're not trying to protect justice - and I'm not saying that we have to - what are we trying to protect exactly? Second, because the R217 protection disallowing "rule changes" while not protecting against "game state changes" is actually dangerous. In the latest Economic proposal, it's very easy to imagine, say a year into operation, some bug freezes spending and makes the CFJs unusable. Either that means the rule change is retroactively nullified (really ugly), or the protection doesn't work in practice, and is therefore useless. (Even if Judgements aren't nomic-fundamental, the "ossified" mechanism covers both of these things which is why I focused on it). -G.
