On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > Rule 1551 states: > > the gamestate is modified > to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was > published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the > ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if the > document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the > time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine > the minimal modifications. > > Back when we introduced the "different past time" possibility, my > reasoning was essentially that the "minimally modified" specification for > ratification is only sensibly calculable if the intuitive time for > "retroactively" changing the game state is the same as or very close to > the time for which the ratification is calculated - in particular, there > should be no in-between follow-on effects, since it might be _more > minimal_ for the ratification to ignore these rather than include them. > > I claim that both the below ratification attempts, as well as the one > Murphy has proposed later, fail horribly in this respect, as there are a > plethora of possible follow-on effects between the time of the large > number of possibly failed emails and the time of the ratified document. As > a result, the true "minimal modification" may differ greatly from the > intuitive result we're trying to achieve. > > The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with > its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as > the time it was true.
What about ratifying a-b and a-o as not having been public fora? (To BAK, obviously.) That seems to make all the potential knock-on effects clear in an easily understandable way. -- ais523