Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to happen because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are preconditions in the rules that already existed for the ratification itself to take place.
Imagine we added that: "Ratification can't be performed by anyone.", and then I attempted to Ratify and the Ratification "passed". It wouldn't have actually passed - just looked like it - because the Ratification wouldn't have been able to be done in the first place. That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action." Or, even if it was illegal, it actually happened (considering " change the legality of any attempted action."), in which case, can I attempt to do illegal stuff and have it be successful as if it was legal? So, before that Ruleset Ratification, there weren't circumstances for such a Ratification to actually be performed. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes > rule because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things > true instantaneously. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/ > msg00165.html , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the > whole rule on August 1st and there was no other change until September - > right at the timeframe of the vulnerability. > > > > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here: > > > > Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part > > of an official report, without objection. > > > > When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that > > the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the > > time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a > > document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any > > messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, > > or change the legality of any attempted action. > > > > Where part of an official report has been the subject of a > > ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is > > part of the same official report. > > > > > > > > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then, > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00002.html , > via Proposal 4940: > > > > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read: > > > > Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, > > as part of its effect, > > > > (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of > > the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting > > to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the > > maximum power permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument > > may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall > > prevail. The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the > > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void. > > > > (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, > > and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. > > > > (c) amend the text of a rule. > > > > (d) retitle a rule. > > > > (e) change the power of a rule. > > > > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. > > Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. > > > > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that > > change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace > > or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not > > constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other > > variation does. > > > > This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, > > modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule > > or cease to be a rule. > > > > > > I believe that your way about how the Rule would've been added is that > the Ratification would've added it in, without an Assesor, would be via > Ratification, but with the stuff found here in my dredging, I don't believe > it would've worked. Adding that rule would've been a "rule change", and a > "A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.". > > > > The Ratification of the Ruleset would've (attempted) to straight up made > that it was true that the rule was in there, but not that it had been > actually added at any time or actually *enacted*, which is the only > mechanism via the which the rule could change. > > > > Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the > Ruleset (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able > to happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and > since it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule, > the attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void. > > > > It might be good to raise a CFJ at this point but please let me know if > there's anything else that might cancel what I've pointed out. > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving > that problem. > > ---- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches > had higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there > have been no Officeholders since (Possibly?). > > > > > > Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but > everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been > bogus since. > > > > > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no > Officeholders." > > > > > > Gratuitous Arguments: > > > - "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it > wasn't there before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. > You can see that proposal here: http://www.mail-archive.com/ > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html, and it says: > > > > > > Create a rule titled "Switches" with Power 2 and this text: > > > > > > "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and > specify the following: (...) > > > 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly > one of which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for > instances of that switch." > > > > > > - The Power of the Offices rule changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 > (Zefram), 13 August 2007. > > > > > > - Our Anti-Ossification protection didn't exist until Proposal 5536 > (Murphy), 7 June 2008, which added: > > > > > > "In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to > the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule > changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any > combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does > not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding." > > > > > > - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there > have been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and > Officeholders had none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which > would've solved the problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there > need to be Office(s) to do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have > the Anti-Ossification rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then > Proposal 5111 would've actually never done anything, and we have never > actually had our modern Switches) > > > > > > Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, > really) Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the > 2nd of August 2007. > > > > > >
