Ugh. No, too ill defined. They should probably mark it provisional
too, if it's in danger of self-ratifying. This was mostly to say that
convergence (which I'm lowercasing) implies provisional, and stop
someone from CoEing on that basis.
-Aris
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote
I am in favor of ratifying (self- or without objection) everything but the
auctions (per Aris’s reasoning).
Gaelan
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
>
> Does something need to retroactively make land auctions and
> resource-nabbing current? I don't see that included in here.
We are definitely restarting land auctions. A lot of players, including me,
didn't bid because we though they didn't work. As for resource nabbing, I
don't know. I don't like the idea of selectively resetting that, because
the actions were legal. I'd favor some sort of voluntary thing, or maybe
res
Does something need to retroactively make land auctions and
resource-nabbing current? I don't see that included in here. My
understanding is that the Cartographor doesn't exist which probably makes
land auctions and maybe all movement on the map broken? Or are we starting
with new land auctions and
> On Mar 18, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Information about a Convergence (but not
> the resulting state) is inherently uncertain and is thus excluded from
> self-ratification.”
Do we need to specify that the history leading up to the convergence doesn’t
self-ratify either
Another draft, which hopefully includes everyone's changes. I fiddled
around a bit with the Convergence wording for clarity and aesthetics.
-Aris
---
Title: PAoaM Patch v3
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Gaelan, Trigon, G.
Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square
6 matches
Mail list logo
