If the dates of reports don't ratify, what does? Isn't self-ratification just "this is the case on this date"?
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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 >> >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
