On Sun, 2025-07-13 at 18:51 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > This means that any values that *are* provided will no longer > self-ratify into being correct, which seems far less than ideal.
Under the old rules, which worked for ages, they didn't self-ratify, but the validity was defined with a future conditional, causing initiations to automatically be valid (regardless of the essential parameters being omitted or wrong) if nobody would challenge them within the next week. Because this wasn't a ratification, it only affected the validity, not the parameters themselves (which would retain the "correct" value even if stated incorrectly). I think this had desirable effects, even though future conditionals are generally undesirable. Perhaps there's a way to get the same effect on validity without it. Proto: make initiations valid if the essential parameters are right, but also specify that rules of power 3 or higher can cause intiations to be valid even if they otherwise would be invalid. That way, ratifying an initiation no longer adds a contradiction, because the minimal change would be "some rule set the initiation to be valid". The problem then would be to avoid the "multiple equally appropriate changes" issue: probably you'd have to ratify the essential parameters in addition to ratifying the initiation validity, because that would cause the two possible changes to no longer be equal in appropriateness. -- ais523
