Ugh, so, I just realized with G.'s recent point about the tally of
votes in Agoran decisions possibly being self-ratifying, that
ratifying the outcome of a decision could have all sorts of
backwards-propagating effects and, in particular, possibly prevents
self-ratification of incorrect outcomes altogether, especially after
my currently pending proposal to make the tally not part of the
self-ratification.
Why?
Well, the outcome is defined by a calculation given by the rules. So
if, say, an AI=1 proposal has votes FOR equal to votes AGAINST, then
its outcome is REJECTED. So ratifying outcome means ratifying that
F>A. But what does that mean, exactly? Do we ratify the existence of
one more vote FOR? If so, who cast it? I suspect this causes the
"unique minimal change" criterion to fail and the ratification overall
to fail.
Having ratification possibly have to compute backwards onto
preconditions was a terrible idea. My recent proposal
I don't have any better ideas to fix this than the explicit legal
fiction idea I proposed before, so here is an approach to that:
Proposal: Ratification by Legal Fiction (AI=3)
{{{
For greater certainty, text in square brackets in rule text in this
proposal is comments and is not included in the actual text enacted.
Enact a new Power-3.1 rule entitled Legal Fictions, reading as follows:
{
A fact is either a natural fact or a legal fact. A natural fact is a
fact which is extrinsic to Agoran law, such as whether a message
expresses a particular intent, or whether or not an entity is an
organism. A legal fact is a fact which is intrinsic to Agoran law,
such as the state of a rule-defined value. A legal fiction is a kind
of legal fact which overrides other natural and/or legal facts. Legal
fictions must be established explicitly.
[Mostly per the proto-proto, except moving away from "Questions" and
focusing just on facts, in order to improve clarity and avoid the
other aspects which aren't currently needed.]
A legal fiction must be defined with respect to a specific point in
time, or to a specific period of time, which CANNOT be in, or extend
into, the future beyond its creation. A legal fiction's direct effects
are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates
notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its
effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects
A legal fiction does not operate retroactively prior to the specified
time, nor does it reason backwards to affect the preconditions for the
state it specifies. Thus, it CAN cause result in a state which would
otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to have attained under the rules at the time.
Such an impossible state CAN persist beyond the time of effect,
provided that nothing occurs or has occurred since to disturb it. When
a legal fiction specifies that something satisfies or does not satisfy
a definition, the amendment of that definition CAN, but does not
necessarily, amount to a natural consequence which disturbs the legal
fiction's effects. Whether it does or not is interpreted on a case by
case basis in accordance with the usual rules of interpretation.
[I would love to be more clear with the last sentence, but I do not
want to be because either way could have bad effects. If we become too
sensitive to definition changes, then they could cause massive
unwinding of legal fictions. But if we are too strict, then
redefinition of terms could cause previous legal fictions to propagate
in an undesirable manner. And I tried to think of an interpretive
guide based on the actual effect of a legal fiction relative to an
underlying fact, in the manner similar to focusing on the ratio
decendi of a judgment, but that undermines the idea that legal
fictions created by mechanisms like ratification are intended to
eliminate the need to look at the underlying facts.]
For instance, if only players can hold offices, then the establishment
of a legal fiction that a person, who was not a not a player, held an
office at a specific point in time causes em to, as of that particular
point, hold the office notwithstanding the prohibition. It does not,
however, operate to make em a player at any point in time. If no
effect exists which would have changed the officeholder since then,
then e would be presently in that office and remain so until something
does change the officeholder, such as eir resignation. However, if the
rules provide that, when a non-player holds an office, it become
vacant, such a rule would take effect immediately after the specified
point in time and cause the office to become vacant. Even with such a
rule, however, if a legal fiction was established that the person held
the office for a period of time, then e would be the officeholder for
that entire time, and would not constantly oscillate in and out of
office.
[Detailed examples are unusual in Agora, as in law, but I see no
reason not to include one here, and sometimes they serve as the best
interpretive guides.]
Legal fictions are evaluated in chronological order, and CAN override
previous legal fictions or result in reinterpretation of history so as
to result in the establishment or non-establishment of legal fictions
in the intervening time. A legal fiction which is internally
inconsistent, after applying the usual rules of interpretation, or
whose establishment would paradoxically prevent itself from being
established, is INEFFECTIVE and CANNOT be established, rules to the
contrary notwithstanding. For the purposes of this paragraph, multiple
legal fictions established simultaneously are treated as a single
legal fiction.
Creation of legal fictions, as defined by this rule, is secured with
power threshold 3. This rule does not otherwise limit the scope of
interpretation of the rules, including interpretations that operate in
a manner similar to the creation of legal fictions.
}
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read as follows:
{
When a document, statement, or collection of statments and/or
documents (hereafter "document") is ratified, a legal fiction is
established that, at the time of the document's publication if it does
not specify another time or period of time, the text of the
document,with exceptions specified by this rule, was wholly true and
correct.
If a document can be divided main section and a summary section, where
the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in
the main section, then ratifying the document ratifies only its main
section, and in particular can proceed even if the main section is
inconsistent with the summary section so long as the main section is
internally consistent.
Text which serves only to document the existence of legal fictions,
and ratifications in particular, is exempt from ratification. This
includes a notation in an officer's report indicating when it was last
ratified. The rules may indicate other legal fictions to be created as
part of a ratification; in that case, if any of the involved legal
fictions would fail to be effective, they all do.
Ratification is secured with the same power threshold as the
establishment of legal fictions.
}
Amend Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection) by replacing
{
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
specifying its scope.
Ratification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal, amendment,
enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.
}
with
{
Any person CAN, without objection, ratify a public document. The
ratification includes a legal fiction that, from the time period
extending from the first moment of the legal fiction relating to the
document's correctness until the moment of ratification, the ruleset
was what it would have been notwithstanding the ratification of the
document's text.
[Drive-by-fix: s/player/person/ which is important if the document in
question is a registrar's report. The latter sentence is a manner of
reproducing the current effects of RWO. I don't like that exception;
limiting the rules from ratification is ordinarily unproductive as it
might cause errors to arise, and it is useless to protect against
scams as you can just ratify something which will cause the rules to
change immediately after the ratification, such as that there is a
proposal, with specified text, whose voting is closed and on whom all
active players have voted.]
}
}}}
-Alexis
