On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > 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.
One question this leaves for me is from Rule 2034. One thing that ratifies is that a decision was "resolved as indicated". Does this mean simply the result (the winner?) self-ratifies? Or does this mean that what self- ratified was the method, i.e. "it was resolved as indicated by this message, by a vote count by the vote collector made on this date".
