I'm against ratifying the Patent Titles automatically. It's our historical
record and there's no harm in fixing using historical records when needed,
and patent titles don't have follow-on effects. That said, it's been
ratified about - I dunno - every other year manually.
I think Aris's draft of winning reforms had that Notices of Victory self-
ratify, that's a good idea, as uncertainty in winning leads to follow-up
uncertainty for Speakership, win resets, etc.
On 2/17/2019 3:38 PM, Madeline wrote:
What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? That
way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something does go
wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with something
important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks?
On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.
The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main one.
The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the
Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.
Those are the ones I got - any others?
