On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > I think we just call it "converging the gamestate" (very much not new to > Alexis. Here you go. > > Maybe we don't need a new term, but I was talking about the specific case > where > the person in an office was unclear.
During something called the "Annabel Crisis", some actions led to questioning who held just about every office. I think we got every single player to announce "I resign the office of Assessor" to be 100% sure the office was vacant, then someone took the job up to announce the Proposal results that retroactively fixed things. (my memory is hazy, it might have happened differently, but it did take every single player announcing some particular action to be sure of an office-holder - this was before self-ratification, and the proposal we had to pass was to ratify everything in place, once we were sure who held Assessor). Other note: A fair thing to do would be to hold an election. But election for ADoP is resolved by ADoP - a problem! We actually used to have "separation of powers" for this, something that read: "In the case that the election is for the office of ADoP, the vote collector is instead [other officer]". Probably should bring that back!
