On Mon, 2024-02-19 at 10:43 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > fwiw, I plan to vote AGAINST any attempt to ratify the ruleset as the > ruleset is currently as if we had been playing "correctly" this whole time. > > As it currently stands, a vote FOR would be a vote to maintain the status > quo that got the ruleset into its current predicament. > The status quo is very platonic, and I don't want it to be. However, that's > an old debate: > https://agoranomic.org/Herald/theses/html/XXXX-XX-XX-Vanyel.html
I actually see ratification as a compromise between the pragmatists and platonists – it's a way to allow both sides to agree on the gamestate. Generally speaking, ratifications are to the advantage of pragmatists because, whilst changing nothing from the pragmatic point of view, they cause the platonic point of view to start agreeing with it. So a vote FOR a ratification (assuming it's being done correctly) basically means "sure, I'm happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in". A vote AGAINST only really makes sense if you think that either something is wrong with the process of ratification, or with the gamestate being ratified; or if you actively *want* platonists to disagree with you about what the ruleset is. -- ais523
