Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong. If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it out some way.
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 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 > > -- >From V.J Rada
