On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > > up in the problem you consider in your judgement. > > I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical > record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal > probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an > afterthought, anyway).
I'm not sure that would break it, though. A ratified document saying "switch instance X has value Y" in the present tense pretty clearly forces the minimally modified gamestate to include that switch value in order to be "as true and accurate as possible"; I don't think the historical record comes into it. Aris's documents were instead written as facts about the past. - Falsifian
