Note to others: The consequences of this is that when any Decision results self-ratify, the date on which the Decision was resolved *doesn't* self-ratify. The secondary implication is that, since no other things (like switches) specify that the dates ratify, that the dates of reports also don't self-ratify.
That's fine as long as that is understood. On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an > unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating > the outcome." Given that the decision was not unresolved, G. could not > resolve the election. According to Rule 2043, the purported resolution > ratified, the decision's existence and outcome. However per Rule 208, > gamestate changing effects occur at the resolution of the decision and > the decision had been resolved, so the gamestate had already changed. > Rule 2043 does not provide that the resolution date ratifies or that > effects ratify, therefore the document purported ratification, but was > not a ratification and therefore the facts ratify, but no further > effects occured. > On 11/04/2017 10:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > >> I AP-CFJ on: G. won the game at some point after October 22, 2017. > > This is CFJ 3591. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > > > On 27-Sept-17, I resolved a Victory Election: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-September/011840.html > > > > I was the winner of the election, so by R2482 I won the game. There > > were no debates or CoEs and the 27-Sept message has self-ratified. > > > > Then on 23-Oct-17, I sent a message purporting to resolve the decision > > (a second time): > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-October/036565.html > > > > I immediately called a CFJ, but the CFJ was specifically on *whether I > > won the game*: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-October/036564.html > > > > Importantly, the CFJ was *not* on whether the decision existed and was > > resolved as indicated. Our past precedents are pretty clear that CFJs > > and CoEs have to be very specific to raise Doubts that stop self- > > ratification, and this CFJ was on one *consequence* of the Decision, not > > the decision itself, so I believe the self-ratification wasn't stopped > > by this CFJ. > > > > So I think, on 30-Oct, that the 23-October resolution message self- > > ratified the decision as existing and being "resolved as indicated". > > > > But this raises an interesting question. It *may* have ratified a "new" > > resolution of the decision (which would make it TRUE that I won again). > > Or it *may* have failed to resolve the decision, while at the same time > > starting a self-ratifying clock for a fact that we already knew, that > > the decision existed and was resolved as indicated on 27-Sept (leading > > to a FALSE). > > > > I personally think that the date stamp of the message is part of what is > > indicated in "resolved as indicated" so I favor TRUE (naturally). But > > I also wonder what implications TRUE/FALSE have for future decisions > > that have multiple resolution attempts. > > > > > > > > > > -- > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > >
