G. wrote:
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".
R1551 says that a ratification "cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules", such as a non-player officeholder (CFJ 3337, and this clause was already in place then) or a non-player having a Budget Switch attached to them. Question is, is the "minimal gamestate change" to handwave that the person was a player just at that moment, or also going forward? Or are these equally compelling, and thus ratification doesn't take effect at all? In any case, I'll publish a corrected Secretary's Report shortly, so as to clear up the gamestate going forward.
