On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Hmm, I think that whole paragraph was early (the first?) self-ratification >> before self-ratification existed; just making it self-ratifying would work >> partly. But part of this was to specify that if this happened, we at >> least zeroed out eir currency, which would have a knock-on effect on >> what's assumed about attempts later that week. > > But, say that I > 1. wait for someone to perform a fee-based action > 2. conditionally deregister if I have no ergs > 3. wait a week > 4. challenge that person's action > > All my ergs are retroactively zeroed, causing me to be ineligible to > challenge, paradox. But in any case, what do the challenger's ergs > have to do with anything?
It breaks down in step 2. Except for voting, conditional actions are one of those administrative conveniences like multivotiong that can be wholly invalidated (considered/judged a null-op) if the conditional is undecidable or even just beyond a reasonable effort to determine. What you've set up is no different than any conditional action where you learn a week later or through CFJ that the conditional wasn't true. And it's not retroactive zeroing, it's just judging a week later whether the account was zero. The two questions "did the action take place" and "what were the resulting ergs" are just being answered late. Finally, I'll note that (even if there was "retroactive" zeroing") this occurs when the PSM confirms/denies the claim. If the claim is later found to have not been officially made (because the claimant was not a player), it's actually true that the PSM, in confirming/denying the claim, also by reference made the claim. Again, no paradox. All this being said, just turning this into a self-ratification, or looking at coppro's version, is better than this more wordy independent mechanism. -G.
