On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> 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. > I'm not sure this makes sense. Previous to its ratification, the decision had never been resolved. Once it was ratified that the decision was resolved, then the minimum modifications to the gamestate must be made assuming that "the decision was resolved" was true at the time of its resolution. That would necessarily imply the game state changes that follow out of the decision resolution had to have happened. I don't think you can get around that by saying that the dependent effect doesn't ratify; that would undermine the whole use of ratification to paper over mistakes with dependent effects.
