On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 01:04:33PM -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Wasn't really planning to publish this so soon, as I'm not really done
> editing it. On the other hand, Murphy has published eirs, so I'm going
> for it.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Ratification Rewrite
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: Jason, G.
>
>
> [Let's face it, the ratification rules are a mess. They're nearly
> unreadable, full of complicated technical language that is painfully
> hard to understand. While they deal with an inherently complex
> problem, that doesn't mean they need to be impossible to read
> themselves.
>
> A while back people suggested some rewrites that
> came at the problem from different angles, but all of them
> had their own problems. This proposal maintains the
> same basic conceptual approach as the current rules,
> but rewrites the text to make it more readable
> and adjusts the complex to simplify them. I hope this will
> lead to cleaner results than we have at present.]
I'm tempted to bring out my "self-ratifying events" proto again. Were
there any particular objections you had?
It wasn't complete, but it is possible to implement in stages.
Its benefit is to get rid of the "minimally modified" language. It
keeps the (arguably confusing) "what it would be if, ..." part, but I'm
not sure it makes sense to get rid of that --- see my criticism below
of your proto.
***
Summary of self-ratifying events: instead of ratifying "{ At time T,
Falsifian has 10 Coins }", you ratify an event: "{ At time T, the Coin
balance of Falsifian was set to 10 }".
If we found we still needed old-style ratification for some reason, we
could invoke it explicitly: ratify that "{ At time T, the gamestate is
minimally modified so that ... }".
To ratify a ruleset, we could explicitly say something like: "at time
T, the all rules are simultaneously amended, repealed or (re-)enacted
to match what's listed in this document". This might make it easier to
reason about whether, for example, the revision numbers changed. The
event we ratified in this example doesn't say anything about revision
numbers, so we are free to conclude that the revision numbers were
affected in the natural way by any changes to rule text. That's a
benefit to saying precisely what happens, rather than vaguely saying
"this becomes true".
***
> Enact a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Documents", with the
> following text:
>
> A document is a body of text. A public document is a document that
> is part (possibly all) of a public message.
>
> A public document's effective date is the time it states, or otherwise
> the time of its publication.
>
> Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification", by changing it to read as follows:
>
> When a statement is ratified, play proceeds as if the statement has
> become true, and the state of the game is updated accordingly.
I don't think this deals with dates properly. Consider this timeline:
- At time T1 I publish this document: { Falsifian has 10 Coins }, and
announce intent to ratify it without objection.
- At time T2 I ratify it without objection.
So, play proceeds as if { Falsifian has 10 Coins } is now true? Doesn't
that mean my Coin balance is reset to 10, regardless of what happened
between T1 and T2?
That's not what we want, especially if { Falsifian has 10 Coins } is
part of the Treasuror's self-ratifying weekly report, causing my Coin
balance to reset to 10 seven days after publication.
Did I miss something?
--
Falsifian
