On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 2/28/22 22:11, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a
retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically
does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying
that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records.
We granted Falsifian a law degree for a thesis arguing otherwise [0].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html
Argh. I'm getting too old to understand Agora...
I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the
minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from
it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of
retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be
mind-wrecking.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal
modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right?
For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is
successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must
necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as
accurate as possible, right?
I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is
ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for
years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule
changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and
everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of
them.
And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably
doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
My mind is going, I can feel it.
Ørjan.
