On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:13, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > Would anyone complain/object if I ratified a "false" Herald's Report > > that claims the Notices of Honor received during the Troubles were > > successful? > > > > Looking at the message list that Murphy nicely assembled for Proposals > > 8278-8279, I kinda feel like the easiest way is for officers to just > > ratify individual reports in the "fairest" way - e.g. coins for work > > done were actually earned, honor was actually changed, etc., but > > elections that were perturbed didn't happen/can be restarted (as > > that's more fair). Generally leaving it up to each officer to figure > > out what's the "most fair"? Saves all monkeying around with fora. > > > > -G. > > It sounds reasonable to me. Also, a reminder to everyone (well, mostly > the H. Herald and H. Referee) that it's a new quarter. > > H. Assessor, I'm sorry for leaving you with a mess; if there's > anything the Promotor's office can do to help, let me know. > > -Aris > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic philosophy as well. Alexis
