On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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.
We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities within their defining category). I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of implementation... -G.
