(TTttDF forward.)
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:17 AM James Cook via agora-discussion
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.
>
> The bit added to Rule 2034 about setting the list of voters is rough;
> probably it would be better to change the quorum rules to make it
> clear that "number of voters" can be a fictional number associated
> with a decision, and then in R2034 just say the number of voters is
> set to whatever was indicated.
>
>
> Title: Retroactive Events
> AI: 3
> Chamber: Efficiency
> Text:
>
> [Comment: The purpose of this proposal is to replace the "minimally
> modified" language of Rule 1551 with something easier to determine. It
> accomplishes this by replacing ratification of documents with
> ratification of explicitly-specified events, which may be cumbersome to
> use, but should be easier to interpret. It also eliminates the use of
> ratifying "portions" of documents, which I think is was bit vaguely
> specified.]
>
This is certainly a hell of a lot simpler than the alternative. You've
dealt pretty convincingly with my complaint about generality; it's not
general, but it looks like the lack of generality doesn't actually
turn out to be a big deal. I still think that this is potentially less
fun than Alexis's proto. I'd really like to hear what Alexis thinks.
This does certainly have a lot of aesthetic appeal and would be a lot
easier to apply in practice...
-Aris
