Re: DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
4st wrote: Right, but I'm not happy to accept the gamestate we're currently playing in. Right, I agree with the platonists that the gamestate is wrong and that ratification is wrong, just... definitely not in the same sense of wrong. Wrong as in it feels wrong, whether or not anything is actually wrong. I think I get where you're coming from, but I don't think you'll make any headway by just saying "more people should be pragmatists because platonism is tedious". Either you have a majority-pragmatist player base or you don't, and as long as the rules continue to specify a certain level of platonism, swinging that pendulum will be an uphill battle. I think the majority of players are currently aiming for such a ratification, but only as a first step, to be followed by amending the rules to fix at least some of the tedium. Where you might make some more headway is to push that second step further, so that the rules /tell/ people to use a more pragmatic interpretation; I think even most platonists would accept that if it was adopted, similar to how they accept successful ratification rather than try to recompute whatever the ratification would paper over (unless it's believed to be gumming up the ratification process itself, as in the Points/Marks crisis, or the current debate).
Re: DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:51 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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/-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". Right, but I'm not 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. > Right, I agree with the platonists that the gamestate is wrong and that ratification is wrong, just... definitely not in the same sense of wrong. Wrong as in it feels wrong, whether or not anything is actually wrong. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
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/-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
DIS: ranting about potential ruleset issue
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/-XX-XX-Vanyel.html Ultimately, the proper thing to do, then, is to express this opinion in the places where opinion actually matters: in the courts and legislature, which is what I am hereby doing. I encourage anyone who is frustrated with the status quo, who feels like they don't truly understand what is going on with the ruleset ratification, who thinks that "years of playing that can only be truly accepted by a complex investigation and precisely worded ratification" is too difficult and wrong, to thereby reject uploading the status quo. Just... I keep playing nomic pragmatically, trying to play based on the social contract, the relationships and what everyone has to say about it, and basing it on feelings and perceived ethics instead of just logic. A platonic viewpoint rejects those feelings and perceived ethics entirely. I see a platonic viewpoint as a strong argument, but not the last word, because the social contract continues the game, the relationships and people and the debate. A platonic gamestate instead says the game continues as long as the invisible, actual gamestate says it does. It could have ended at any time, and we wouldn't have known, and things could be entirely different, and we'll never have truly known. With a platonic gamestate, all we can do is our best by sifting through history. And there's too much history. For me at least. And too many rules, since I can never seem to read them all, or keep them all in my head, organized, and such. I'd be open to playing a definitively platonic nomic with the gamestate definitive and visible (eg a code-based nomic), but Agora is not code based, so, at least to me, Agora feels pragmatic, in some sense. After this all settles down, if it does end up complexly ratified (which is likely what will happen), I'll probably WRIT of FAGE and come back later at some point. You know me, I can't stay away. This platonic vs pragmatic debate will probably always continue indefinitely, and there will always be proponents to one side or the other, and I want to help the pragmatic side. At least. That's what I think is going on. I have no idea, because things are pretty platonic right now, and it could all be different. I just hope I'm not *entirely* wrong right now, because if I am, what am I even playing??? -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
