On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 11:17, 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.
I've finally had the time to read it through, and I think that the core approach we're advocating here is basically the same. The only difference is the way that we express it, really, something that I would like to scale down to my version, likely incorporating omd's proto downthread. My main concern is that in some cases, the lack of clarity is actually valuable. For instance, if memory serves, it has been held that the self-ratification of a distribution can modify properties of a proposal, rather than merely creating a new similar proposal. This is, I think, an advantage, and something where it is nice to still have space for interpretation by the courts. -Alexis
