I feel this needs clarification then. It should be explicit. Or else, is there a CFJ with specific tests for what changes?
On June 5, 2023 7:45:36 PM GMT-03:00, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >On 6/5/23 16:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote: >> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]: >>> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it >>>> would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes stored on >>>> the server changed the CPU heat emission just enough so that, weeks later, >>>> there was a hurricane across the globe, which temporarily disconnected >>>> one of the players that then didn't perform a specific action at a s >>>> pecific time. >>>> >>>> Is this ridiculous? Yes. But then again: that is what is written. >>> None of that is "gamestate", and by this logic, all ratification is broken. >> It's not gamestate, but the gamestate would be different in that >> situation. Ratification is not broken because it specifically makes it >> so the assertions made in a document are true. Ratification of blanket >> assertions is broken. >> > >Actually, I'm not going to concede this point. > >This isn't ratifying anything about the physical world. It's ratifying >something about the state of the game, not about what message was sent >with the initial enactment (and it specifically is not modifying the >initial enactment, since it excludes the ruleset). The same messages >were still sent and received with the same content, and people still >read the same things. > >Anything else isn't the "minimal modification". > >-- >Janet Cobb > >Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason -- Juan
