On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:25 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >> >>> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a >>> bit better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts: >>> >>> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under >>> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively >>> changed, and >>> >>> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the >>> proposal, by reference (through links into the archives). >>> >>> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, >>> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies >>> without losing those transactions when ratification happens. >>> >>> Does this seem reasonable >> >> We have to walk a thin line of ratifying the effect of diffrent rules >> without ratifying the rules themselves. Honestly, I'd be tempted just >> to ratify a secreatary's report with all the "correct" info. > > I thought about that, and I’m not at all sure it’s sufficient. I would want > to make sure every action that “should” have happened actually did happen - > and many of those actions have effects beyond the Secretary’s report. The > biggie is proposals: anything that threatens the validity of submitting or > pending proposals threatens the validity of the rules, and - as things stand > - we _definitely_ have some actions in the state where their intended effects > on the rules are not their actual effects on the rules.
Really not a problem. Players can submit proposals for free. The promotor CAN distribute proposals, but SHALL NOT do so unless they're pending (R2350). Thus the worst thing that could happen is that I could get a finger pointed at me. -Aris
