On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To me this says that the ratification of a ruleset that's missing the > effects of the message wherein the Assessor resolved the decision to > adopt a proposal doesn't cancel the effects of that resolution, so the > proposal still has its effect. On the other hand, it also seems to > say that ratification is completely useless since the rule seems to > contradict itself; if the effects of actions on the gamestate that > weren't recorded aren't invalidated by the ratification of the > document that failed to record them, then ratification necessarily > can't actually change the gamestate. Game custom indicates that this > is a faulty interpretation of the rule, but I don't see any other > reason for Rule 1551 to basically explicitly disclaim its own purpose.
The proposal did have its effect; it's just that the ratification magically reverted the ruleset to what it would have been if it didn't.
