On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Above, my arguments assert that "self-ratification" of the specific
> > Registrar's and IDAoP reports affect state but not history, but
> > ratification in general CAN affect history. New evidence shows that such
> > ratification without objection took place here, before this CFJ was called:
> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2013-June/031344.html
> > and so scshunt was in fact an eligible voter. I judge TRUE.
>
> I was hoping for more in-depth discussion of why, but meh.
What's really missing? It seems pretty evident to me that a power-3.1
rule that says, "after this ratifies, we treat everything going forward
as if this history was true" is pretty straightforward and overrules
everything.
It might be different if we hadn't believed it all along. We were
playing that whole time as if scshunt was a player, so our perception
and actions during that time matched the final ratified state. So
in all possible ways, this is they very most *minimal* of changes
to alter the record to fit our beliefs and past actions.
If we ratified the opposite (ratifying something that we *didn't*
believe at the time), you could get into questions of "well, if
scshunt had been a player, I wouldn't have made move X" and then it's
probably much thornier.
-G.
