On May 23, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote:
>> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification
>> {{{
>> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following
>> paragraph at the end:
>>
>> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive
>> aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule 2141, are self-ratifying. The
>> Rulekeepor SHALL NOT knowingly publish an SLR or FLR where the
>> self-ratifying portion is incorrect.
>> }}}
>>
>> [I don't think making the whole thing self-ratifying would cause any
>> problems, but there's a lot in the FLR, so I limited it to just
>> rule-specific stuff.]
>
> I'm *strongly* opposed to this. Rulekeepors sometimes make
> (unintentional) errors, and sometimes these errors are things that
> could seriously break the game. Having rules changes limited to methods
> with much more oversight (e.g. making full-Ruleset ratifications rare,
> with many players looking over the purported ruleset for loopholes and
> omissions) is much safer for Agora's ongoing existence.
>
> Note also that we never ratify the FLR, only the SLR. This means that
> if a rule *was* misstated, we can then place an "amended by
> ratification" in the FLR to explain what happened to it, thus making
> the rule history an accurate reflection of reality. If we ratified the
> FLR, we'd also be ratifying an incorrect history of how the rule got to
> where it did.I won’t go so far as to suggest making it a rule, for a variety of reasons, but it might be worth our while to build a tradition of ratifying the FLR during Read The Ruleset Week. This year’s RTRW went unmarked and uncelebrated, as no players were meaningfully active during February. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
