Lying about your record seems worse and easier to avoid than failing to live up to a promise; you seem to suggest that keeping promises is as easy as being truthful about your record.
More importantly, this amendment would probably be bad. (Who decides whether I’ve made a “promise,” and whether I’ve kept it? What’s the punishment if they decide I’ve broken a promise and failed to acknowledge that?)
More relevantly, this amendment is totally intractable; no amendment like this will be proposed.
1. Keeping promises is hard, being truthful seems to be hard to them… I’m not sure why their relative difficulty makes any difference? Could you outline the steps in that argument a bit more?
2. If the amendment operates by criteria, rather than dictate, it’s aligned with what I originally described. For example, “Make Everything Fantastic” would only be rated true if nothing declined. There are objective metrics for these things, and in those cases of ambiguity, you side on “broken promise” for safety. I don’t pretend to have perfect mechanism design on my first try, either—that’s why I shared a rough thought which might be developed further. I value investigating questions like “what is the repercussion of not admitting a broken promise?” Yet, the existence of such questions does not invalidate the task. It might be worth looking into. Do you see that?
3. Again, I’m missing your arguments. You’re making a claim, and then stating its consequent, without stating its necessary cause(s). What makes this intractable? Leaving-out your arguments implies that you assume you are right, which isn’t the “Scout’s Mindset” that I heard about...
Lying about your record seems worse and easier to avoid than failing to live up to a promise; you seem to suggest that keeping promises is as easy as being truthful about your record.
More importantly, this amendment would probably be bad. (Who decides whether I’ve made a “promise,” and whether I’ve kept it? What’s the punishment if they decide I’ve broken a promise and failed to acknowledge that?)
More relevantly, this amendment is totally intractable; no amendment like this will be proposed.
Thank you!
1. Keeping promises is hard, being truthful seems to be hard to them… I’m not sure why their relative difficulty makes any difference? Could you outline the steps in that argument a bit more?
2. If the amendment operates by criteria, rather than dictate, it’s aligned with what I originally described. For example, “Make Everything Fantastic” would only be rated true if nothing declined. There are objective metrics for these things, and in those cases of ambiguity, you side on “broken promise” for safety. I don’t pretend to have perfect mechanism design on my first try, either—that’s why I shared a rough thought which might be developed further. I value investigating questions like “what is the repercussion of not admitting a broken promise?” Yet, the existence of such questions does not invalidate the task. It might be worth looking into. Do you see that?
3. Again, I’m missing your arguments. You’re making a claim, and then stating its consequent, without stating its necessary cause(s). What makes this intractable? Leaving-out your arguments implies that you assume you are right, which isn’t the “Scout’s Mindset” that I heard about...