On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > To avoid committing fraud I hereby specify that the document I am > > attempting to ratify is inaccurate to the extent that no such agency > > exists. Oh, I made a typo in the below ratification as well. I object > > to that ratification and intend to, without objection, ratify this: > > As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification has problems. The > system is designed to ratify _old documents_ with _simulated > retroactivity_ - not a _new_ document containing _retroactive claims_. I > see at least two issues: > > (1) The impossibility of rule changes, that others have mentioned. > (2) It is really not obvious what > "the gamestate is modified to what it would be > if, at the time the ratified document was published, the > gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified > document as true and accurate as possible" > means - what is a minimal change _at the time of publishing_ in > order to achieve a retroactive claim _much earlier_? > > In your case, the minimality in (2) might plausibly mean that it simply > changes "now" the state of the agency itself - but _none_ of the > intermediate side effects on other game state that are your real reason > for wanting to save it.
(2) has already been found to be a genuine issue that can prevent ratifications working (and was the cause of a minor crisis in the past); proposal 6930 (2 January 2011) was the fix proposal. Reading posts from that time is likely to have relevant discussion. (I can't find a relevant CFJ; that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't one, of course, as searching old CFJs can be hard.) -- ais523
