Okay, first, practical matters: * Given your position on the matter, Aris, I don't plan to push for this change any time soon.
* I'm still keen to try out the power-0.5 mini game. I have at least one correction which I'll post separately. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. ---- Now, less-practical matters (separating this part out since it feels like more of a debate with no immediate impact, though the sub-game might make at least part of it relevant). > How does this help? Specifically, how is it any better than what exists now? I think it is a *slightly* simpler and more elegant way to implement ratification than what we have now, and I also think it's a fun idea. Clearly, we disagree, on the first part at least! On the topic of whether whether or not a higher-powered rule would be required--- do you think enacting my (proto-)proposed mini-game would help resolve our disagreement? (Maybe it would resolve the question of whether multiple timelines are created too, or maybe we just disagree on the definition of "timeline".) On the topic of added uncertainty --- I take your point that right now most facts relevant to the game are possible to know based only on knowledge of past public messages. Indeed, my proposed mini-game would deliberately add more situations involving this kind of uncertainty. However, if the idea were carefully applied to ratification, I believe the uncertainty would not often come up in practice, beyond having to sometimes re-file a CFJ after CoEing a report that's not consistent with our beliefs. I would be curious to see an example where you think it's likely to cause a real problem. But I'm also happy to let this matter rest for now and focus on the power-0.5 test. -- - Falsifian
