but without a proposal, everything is still totally broken?
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:01 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The long-term effect is equivalent. The short term effect is different
> though, in that ratification without objection takes 4 days, and
> proposals take a week min but usually more like 2. Keep in mind that
> ratification is really just a way to change the past, regardless if
> whether you're changing it to agree with the players mental
> conceptions or for some other reason. Any change to the past has to
> use ratification or something equivalent anyway. The reason I'm in
> such a hurry about this is that it affects so many areas of the
> gamestate. The invalidation of the Floating Value is the most serious,
> as it could change whether all kinds of actions are able to take
> effect. That includes both CFJs and pending proposals, although
> proposals don't actually have to be pended before being distributed as
> a safety feature. It's bad for the game to have an unclear gamestate,
> and the sheer scope of the invalidations overworks o, so I'm trying to
> ratify the problem away. Ratification should not be considered
> objectionable, as its really just an unopinionated method to change
> reality, kind of like a proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:03 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not particularly motivated rn to object but please let me know why
> > deliberately ratifying false info (with good intent though) is preferable
> > over proposing to set the gamestate to be a certain way.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree it feels weird, but at least some of the behavior has already
> >> ratified and things might just confuse the gamestate.
> >> ----
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sep 8, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Tbh I feel weird about it too, and would prefer the fix to come via
> >> > proposal
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 22:40 Aris Merchant
> >> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document:
> >> >
> >> > {{The revision to the secretary's report, available here [1], was true
> >> > and correct when it was published.
> >> >
> >> > The Stamps Addendum to the Secretary's report, available here [2], was
> >> > true and correct when it was published.
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011750.html
> >> >
> >> > [2]
> >> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011751.html
> >> > }}
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > For the record, these reports are not true or correct, but them not
> >> > being correct would invalidate a lot of gameplay, as well as a lot of
> >> > planning by players. It's rapidly becoming clear that this situation
> >> > will have wide-ranging destructing impacts on the gamestate unless
> >> > someone stops it.
> >> >
> >> > To anyone who has a technical objection to this, it would be
> >> > appreciated if you could bring them up ASAP, at least in the next day.
> >> > I would also appreciate it if they could be brought up to a-d first,
> >> > to see if anyone can poke holes in them. In my opinion, an additional
> >> > minor error in one of these reports would not justify the game
> >> > disruption of having this problem stick around for longer. To block
> >> > one potential objection, I know that the revision to the report has an
> >> > effective date different from its publication date, but the date is
> >> > part of the document, and so is resolved in the same way as it would
> >> > be if the document is self ratified. I intend to keep behaving with
> >> > the gamestate the way we thought it was, on the basis that someone
> >> > will ratify away the problem eventually.
> >> >
> >> > CuddleBeam, if you frivolously object to this, I and a lot of other
> >> > players will be grouchy with you. It is widely agreed that there was
> >> > no way you got shines, even if the bug your scam exploited worked.
> >> > There is no outcome where you get shines out of this. Gaelan probably
> >> > won't either, if that's a consolation. However, the long term impact
> >> > on the game will likely be the same, as I or someone else will likely
> >> > ratify some equivalent document by proposal. Further, everyone will be
> >> > even more irritated at you. You will have hurt Agora at no benefit to
> >> > yourself or anyone else. If that isn't enough to stop you, I will ask
> >> > the PM to card you by executive order for harming the game. E might
> >> > refuse, but do you want to take the chance?
> >> >
> >> > -Aris
> >>
> >
>
