On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 9:18 AM Goren Barak via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 2023-11-20 11:37, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:55 AM Goren Barak via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> I will now ratify ratify the following document, using Rule 2202 > >> (Ratification Without Objection): > >> > >> Effective a immediately, Goren now has 500 radiance. > >> Their voting strength is now 15. > >> Their Base Rockiness has also gone up to 100. > >> > >> Rule 2202 tells me to make my intentions clear, so my intentions are to > >> win. > >> > >> Neither Rule 2202 nor Rule 1728 specify a period in which you can > >> object, so that period is over. You can no longer object to this > >> document. Thank you for your time. > >> > > > > Per R2202, which Goren cited in the above: > > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use > > Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) > > document containing incorrect or Indeterminate information when a > > corrected document could be produced with reasonable effort, > > unless the general nature of the document's error and reason for > > ratifying it is clearly and plainly described in the announcement > > of intent. Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify > > is the Class 8 Infraction of Endorsing Forgery. > > > > I note the above infraction committed by Goren. I suggest that the > Referee > > investigate and find em guilty of 0 blots, since we are kind to new > players. > > If e is found guilty of more blots, I plan to forgive em so e will have > no > > blots. :) > > > > (Goren, I recommend you keep trying to do things! This, one of the > highest > > crimes, could only get you 8 blots maximum! ONLY 8! you need 40 to even > be > > exiled as an outlaw! FOUR ZERO! FORTY!) > > The intent was clearly described in the announcement, so I hopefully > wouldn't be guilty. This should be a CFJ because we kind of need to have > a precedent and clear this up. > You didn't describe the "general nature of the document's error", though, did you? Just the reason for ratifying it. You need both. -Aris
