ttttpf On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:28 PM, VJ Rada <[email protected]> wrote: > I ratify this: > >> {{There is an agency with the following text. >> "G: Overlord of Dunce (GOD) >> Head: Quazie >> Agents: G. >> Powers: 1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with >> Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent >> 2 - The ability to establish Agencies with Quazie as the Director or >> Head and G. as the only agent". >> That agency was established by a message sent by Quazie, purporting to >> establish a message called "G is Overlord of Dunce", but the name of >> the agency is, and has been since its establishment, "G: Overlord of >> Dunce"}} > > Don't worry about it affecting rules, it doesn't. > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>> >>> > To avoid committing fraud I hereby specify that the document I am >>> > attempting to ratify is inaccurate to the extent that no such agency >>> > exists. Oh, I made a typo in the below ratification as well. I object >>> > to that ratification and intend to, without objection, ratify this: >>> >>> As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification has problems. The >>> system is designed to ratify _old documents_ with _simulated >>> retroactivity_ - not a _new_ document containing _retroactive claims_. I >>> see at least two issues: >>> >>> (1) The impossibility of rule changes, that others have mentioned. >>> (2) It is really not obvious what >>> "the gamestate is modified to what it would be >>> if, at the time the ratified document was published, the >>> gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified >>> document as true and accurate as possible" >>> means - what is a minimal change _at the time of publishing_ in >>> order to achieve a retroactive claim _much earlier_? >>> >>> In your case, the minimality in (2) might plausibly mean that it simply >>> changes "now" the state of the agency itself - but _none_ of the >>> intermediate side effects on other game state that are your real reason >>> for wanting to save it. >> >> (2) has already been found to be a genuine issue that can prevent >> ratifications working (and was the cause of a minor crisis in the >> past); proposal 6930 (2 January 2011) was the fix proposal. Reading >> posts from that time is likely to have relevant discussion. (I can't >> find a relevant CFJ; that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't >> one, of course, as searching old CFJs can be hard.) >> >> -- >> ais523 > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
-- >From V.J. Rada
