On 11/29/20 10:01 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2020-11-29 at 18:25:53 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document ~~~ >> delimited document. >> >> ~~~ >> One second ago, 1 legislative card was created in Aris's possession. >> ~~~ > I'm not a player, but would object if I were. > > The statement being ratified should just be "Aris has 1 legislative > card". The way it's written at the moment, you're trying to simulate > the effects of a gamestate change at 18:25:53 that changed what the > gamestate was at 18:25:52, which is impossible. > > Or to put it another way, it makes a lot more sense to ratify the > consequences of an action than it does to ratify the action itself. >
I found in CFJ 3788 [0] that the effects of a similar RWO were as intended. I believe very similar reasoning would to this case. Even if that judgment was platonically wrong (I'm still not quite sure) and this wouldn't work, this RWO would still establish for the next self-ratifying Treasuror's report, assuming that the difference in one legislative card doesn't matter until then (which it might, but seems somewhat unlikely). [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3788 -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
