On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that are self- > > > ratifying?) > > > > The message still doesn't self-ratify until a week after the other > > players generally received it. When it does, though, it self-ratifies > > the fact that it self-ratified on Jan 8 2017. AFAICT this doesn't lead > > to an infinite regress, but it is fairly confusing. > > Oh I know there's no issue now; I was meaning under Ørjan's proposed > "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a > self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time." > (wouldn't that explicit Rules-specification of the Date being correct > override any old precedent about when it was "generally received"?)
A self-ratifying claim has no rules effect until it actually self- ratifies. So if a message contains a blatantly incorrect Date, the only effect that has on the game is to determine what happens if the Date subsequently ratifies. If someone CoEs it (and the CoE isn't cleaned up one way or another), the Date field wouldn't do anything at all. An (imperfect, but close enough) analogy: if a player posted some fake proposal results claiming that a rule had been created that caused purported proposal results to ratify instantly rather than after a week, it still wouldn't actually ratify for a week, giving players time to CoE it. If not for that, this would lead to a really trivial scam (which is kind-of reminscent of Lindrum World, come to think of it). -- ais523
