On 7/3/2020 10:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 7/3/2020 10:41 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: >> What's the Annabel Crisis? > > - A person registered under the name Annabel, did not much for a month or > so, then deregistered. > > - ~6 months later, a long-time player (Maud) confessed that e had been > Annabel. > > - It was decided that Annabel's "I deregister" message applied to Maud, so > Maud hadn't really been a player for those 6 months. > > - Unfortunately, e'd been (thought to be) promotor during that time, and > this was before self-ratification, and there wasn't anything like "a > document purporting to initiate a decision...[could ratify]". It just > amounted to, if e hadn't been promotor, none of those proposals were ever > distributed or adopted. > > - After a lot of discussion about whether the game was unfixable, it was > fixed by proposal ratifying everything e'd done, and became the case study > for self-ratification and the "document purporting to be" language. The > fix steps included everyone announcing that they "resigned promotor" so > there was certainty over who might be promotor (because only the promotor > could distribute the fix).
btw, the relevance to this current case is in R1551 (Ratification): > Such a modification cannot > add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules and: > An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; If the Registrar's Report lists a non-person as a player, that's an "inconsistency". The document would not self-ratify. Similarly, reports that would make that entity an officer, or have em hold currencies that only persons could hold, ribbons, etc. might not have self-ratified. If we found out that a person had become a non-person, but we had kept em in the reports for a while, then none of those reports would have self-ratified for that whole while (even if we thought they had), and we could be in that sort of inconsistent state again. -G.
