On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 16:23, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > Ørjan wrote: > > Winning and patent titles can still be lost as a side effect of ratifying > > a document published before they happen, when that removes a prerequisite > > for their award. > > Oh of course oops - not sure if it's better to stick with ratification > or come up with a true "set at time action is completed" version, both > have advantages and disadvantages. It's important to allow the scammers to > keep some benefit of their work.
I'm having trouble imagining a situation where this is an issue. Can't the officers just publish their self-ratifying documents after the scammer claims eir victory? E.g. if a scammer gets >1000 coins, e can immediately win. Not much time wasted. I'm less sure about paradoxes, since I'm not sure whether R591's "based on the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated" means ratification shouldn't change the judgement, but also I'm not sure whether the new rule is meant to help in paradoxical situations anywa. - Falsifian
