CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them self-ratify for most of them.
-Aris On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:38 PM Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? > That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something > does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with > something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks? > > On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > >> Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official > >> reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and > >> I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than > >> the date I registered*. > > > > The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o > > objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset > > didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main > > one. > > > > The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions > > that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the > > Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail > > automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up. > > > > Those are the ones I got - any others? > > > >
