On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Ratification become broken a little over a year ago.
3 years, as if it was broken then R1551 was never ratified back to power 3. > For instance, one method to fix the problem would have been to find one > player who had certainly been continuously registered since ratification > broke, and for every other player to deregister, with that remaining > player assuming Assessor and Promotor and fixing the ruleset via > proposal. There is little need to do this, as there is no reason that the list of first-class players would not be what we think it is, as the rules regarding joining and leaving rarely change. I believe I'm definitely Promotor and Assessor: I should have been successfully elected Promotor unopposed if Machiavelli was indeed IADoP from 12-20 Apr 2013, and Assessor unopposed if scshunt was IADoP from 23-30 Jun. No particular reason why our record of officeholdership would be incorrect in the first place, but likely other holders of IADoP (IADoPs between ratification breakage and then): scshunt circa 2011 - became inactive on 9 Jan 2012 (among other times) Murphy circa 2011 - resigned on 24 Jan 2012 Yally in Jan 2013 - resigned on 11 Feb 2013 441344 circa 2012 - was deregistered 7 Apr 2013 Machiavelli attempted to assume IADoP on 12 Apr, and there is no reason the office would be Postulated and held by any of those players at that time. I assume our history since then of scshunt becoming IADoP is correct. There was an issue with scshunt possibly being deregistered by self-ratification, but with ratification broken there is no need to worry about it. So my emergency distribution should have succeeded, and the forthcoming resolution should as well. If anyone thinks this might be incorrect, easiest way forward would probably be deputising to distribute and resolve that proposal, but without some specific reason for this I wouldn't bother. This is ignoring the possibility of Fool's interpretation being correct. Although we could attempt to merge the gamestates, we do have a CFJ system for a reason (and, on the other hand, almost certainly do not have a platonically correct gamestate if we don't assume that the results of CFJs are correct). Wooble's interpretation is perhaps more likely. I disagree with CFJ 2940 on the ramifications (yes, I just said that we have to trust the CFJ system, but I believe the CFJ didn't receive that much attention due to being about a hypothetical): imo the inherent dysfunctionality and ambiguity of being able to take actions by sending to /dev/null (how is that even defined? couldn't every possible message be said to have been sent to no one?) means that if it was correct, it would have made Agora inherently impossible to play, so Rule 1698 prevented the relevant proposal from taking effect, and ratification did or will paper over things. But you might disagree with this, and no harm in Wooble trying to merge eir branch at some point.
