On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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. > It's really tempting to try to implement Canada's Doré framework, since the only people who seemed to understand it were the judges on the Supreme Court who wrote it. :P
