I was about to ask what causes that to be a relative duration, but I
see a Ruleset annotation saying this was already covered by CFJ 3624.
I'm curious what the reasoning was, but I think I'll move on to other
questions.

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agora weeks are explicitly not the default for relative durations, so it’s
> self-ratified at this point.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:08 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 10:20, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
> > the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
> > gamestate of either of them is.
> > >
> > > I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities
> > in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those
> > created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
> > recordkeepor have their default value.}
> > >
> > > I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> > existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
> > created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have
> > their default value.}
> > >
> > > I resign Clork and I resign Astronomor.
> >
> > Claim of Error for the above Astronomor report: several Sectors and
> > Spaceships existed when the report was published.
> >
> > Claim of Error for the above Clork report: several Politicians existed
> > when the report was published.
> >
> > I think these only affect self-ratification if we interpret "one week"
> > to mean "one Agoran week" in "continuously undoubted for one week"; if
> > it means 7 days, then I think the report already self-ratified. It
> > probably means 7 days due to precedent and convention, e.g. Aris's
> > judgment of CFJ 3723 (twg's proto-judgement) says "...the incorrect
> > report self-ratified 7 days after its publication...".
> >

Reply via email to