On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > 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.
I think I rather assumed that the self-ratification would be accompanied by assuming that the same Date field was correct in the first place, otherwise every single message would shift time slightly after a week which would have bad effects I'm guessing (and not solve the original problem whatsoever). So I guess my puzzle is, under this idea, what date is assumed correct while we're waiting for the self-ratification? (I mean if this clause were to be passed, because if we're going to put in self-ratification, we should take the default assumption out of precedent and put it in the rules).
