On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If so, it means that self-ratification is simply an admission that, > in spite of R1698, we are not in fact playing a nomic, but rather > playing a system where we can arbitrarily make any change by > unanimous consent (to ignore the falsehood), regardless of whether > the proposal process exists. In other words, we've formally > agreed to accept any metagame falsehood as long as consent to > accept it is unanimous; this is hardly a comfortable position for > a nomic to be in.
Philosophically, I disagree with this; even a nomic where self-ratification was the only way for anything to change would still be a nomic. It's a rules-defined process, after all. (For further evidence, consider that self-ratification has been scammed in the past; if it were purely metagame, it wouldn't make any sense to be able to scam it.) Nothing about nomicness requires proposals to be the primary method of changing the rules, or even for proposals to exist. -- ais523
