On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2016, ais523 wrote:
> > https://cfj.qoid.us/3337: a self-ratifying list of switches can cause
> > people to become players in order to allow the switches to exist,
>
> I'm really surprised at that ruling; at least it doesn't match the
> current reading of the rule IMO, wonder if it's changed.
Heh. It was my ruling, now that I have a chance to read it, but I
disagree with your interpretation. It didn't talk about the existence of a
switch; instead, it said there was an existing switch (officeholding) that
had been ratified as an illegal value (a particular non-player), therefore
ratifying that value to be a legal value, by making the non-player into a
player. This didn't directly ratify a switch into existence.
In the current case, R2162 governs exactly what aspect of switches are
governed by self-ratification.
The key part of my current reasoning is that the *existence* of switches
does not self-ratify. Rather, the value of *existing* switches ("each
instance of that switch") is the only thing that is subject to self-
ratification in R2162. (This would be different with explicit
ratification, depending on what an explicit ratification message purported
to ratify).
Also to note: the Judgement depended on "minimal gamestate change" (R1551)
which may differ for each case. In the case of an Office, it may be that
the minimal change was to assume that office was held by a non-player instead
of undoing the officer's work. However, in the case of an economic value
that hasn't really propagated into the gamestate much, the minimal change
may be "set the economic value to 0, but leave the person a non-player".
-G.
