I ratify this:
> {{There is an agency with the following text.
> "G: Overlord of Dunce (GOD)
> Head: Quazie
> Agents: G.
> Powers: 1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with
> Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent
> 2 - The ability to establish Agencies with Quazie as the Director or
> Head and G. as the only agent".
> That agency was established by a message sent by Quazie, purporting to
> establish a message called "G is Overlord of Dunce", but the name of
> the agency is, and has been since its establishment, "G: Overlord of
> Dunce"}}
Don't worry about it affecting rules, it doesn't.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
--
>From V.J. Rada
