AP is unambiguous throughout the "timelines", so just making/pending a fix
proposal with that would be the clearest way imo.
Also I've seen that Owen has made a bunch of cheap proposals, which could
make for huge profits once the economy gets better (Proposals: Welcome
Package CAN Patch, Stamp CAN Patch, Agency Typo Fix, You can take it with
you)

However, it won't work if this false info doesn't get ratified with the low
pending value he has used. It annoys me that it was he himself too who
pointed out that Stamps didn't actually exist and this whole mess, making
me believe that he was aware of it but hoped we didn't catch it so that he
could do this greed maneuver (assuming that I'm correct in this insight).

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> If we trust that the proposal is going through, we can continue
> to play as if Floating value has been changed correctly, and assume
> the values will catch up officially when the proposal passes.
>
> If we ratify without fixing the rule (fixing the rule requires a
> proposal no matter what), what happens to further play that happens in
> between ratification and fixing the rule?
>
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant 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
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>

Reply via email to