On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." > > [snip] > > If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, > ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the > gamestate and the rules.
I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora could flip that switch. (Actually, this could lead to an interesting paradox – at the end of the intent period for the RWO, we have a situation where a gamestate change – possible to make in zero time, via resolving the intent – could unossify Agora. This implies that Agora is not ossified. However, if Agora is not ossified, ratifying the statement has no effect, because you'd be ratifying a true statement; as such, in that hypothetical Agora is actually ossified! Agora is thus ossified if and only if it isn't.) -- ais523
