This is what ratification without objection and ratification by proposal (which isn't mentioned in the rules, but strongly implied) are for. They allow you to "fix" the past, either because of a dispute or because there's something we want to collectively ignore.
-Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute or > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt one. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists. >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to me. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into having >> >> > them. >> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly Secretary’s >> >> report will do that, thankfully. >> >> >> >> -o >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J Rada > >
