I’m not Alexis, but I do have some replies of my own. On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:11 PM omd via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > 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 > > Missing a period at the end of the paragraph. > > What is a "direct effect"? What is a "natural consequence"? > > How complicated can the natural consequences be? You establish later > that it can be something like "Michael Norish is the Registrar despite > not being a player". Can the complexity be extended to effectively > amount to a rule, like "Michael Norrish CAN submit a proposal by > announcement, despite not being a player"? If not, it should be more > clear why not. > > Regardless, there should be an office responsible for tracking ongoing > "natural consequences" of (known) legal fictions.
I’m not sure I see the need, but if we do, the FLR annotations would seem to be the closest analogous model. > > > or > > whose establishment would paradoxically prevent itself from being > > established, > > Why include this? There's nothing inherently problematic about > ratifying a document which implies that the ratification process would > have failed – especially compared to the continuous rule-contradicting > effects that you allow elsewhere. Yes there is. If it implies that it’s own ratification failed, then does the legal fiction exist or does it not? > Wording could be improved to tie this better into the previous > paragraph: "ratifying the document ratifies only its main section" is > self-contradictory if taken literally. > > > Text which serves only to document the existence of legal fictions, > > and ratifications in particular, is exempt from ratification. > > Why? It’s in the current rules, and is a good safety catch to avoid chains of legal fictionality. > General notes: > > - You should add a clause about how CFJs interact with legal fictions – e.g. > they take into account legal fictions that existed at the time of > initiation, > but not ones established thereafter. I strongly agree, and also would prefer it be implemented as specified in your example. > > - I'm tentatively positive about this new approach, but even though it fixes a > lot of issues with ratification as it currently exists, it's scary in > entirely different ways. That's a good way of describing my position too. -Aris
