Ed Murphy wrote: >The proposal in question repealed points, and enacted Marks which were >used for officer salaries and such.
Marks already existed, and IIRC by this point they were already used quite a lot. The proposal (2662) merely repealed Points. >Zefram [2] spent a few months working out different possible >gamestates The crisis only lasted a couple of weeks. I issued reports on the possible range of officeholders every couple of days during that time. I also spent a few hours one day trawling through months of mail archive to significantly narrow down who might hold the key offices. (My initial reports started from the conservative position that any player might hold any office.) I never attempted to track currency holdings, and therefore we never knew which proposals in the interim had passed. So some Rules were in an indeterminate state, in addition to Wins and offices. There was even some uncertainty (resolved by archive trawling) about who was registered. My final report on the game state uncertainty said |Registrations of former Players are only maybe-successful at the moment |-- Rule 1043 referred to Game ends rather than months until Proposal |2697, on October 10th, and the passage of that Proposal is in question, |so registrations might still depend on Game ends (about which we know |precisely nothing). Transitions On and Off Hold, and registrations of |new Players (or former Players continuously deregistered since before |the last Game end prior to September) are OK. > * X and Y then processed a proposal to the effect of "<the earlier > proposal> is legally deemed to have been adopted, regardless of > all other factors". There were two proposals. We had a form of ratification back then called a "Vote Of Confidence". This could only be performed by proposal, and would not affect the Rules. So we had a VOC at AI=1 and a special-purpose proposal at AI=3.1 to fix the Rules. >[2] Which places this some time in 1996 or 1997; I was in the final year of university, which narrows it down to the range 1996-10/1997-08. The RCS log for the quantum report shows the first version checked in (probably not the first report issued) on 1997-02-08, and the final report on 1997-02-13. >[3] Eir interim updates generally had subjects like "Quantum Report", > hence the popular name of the crisis. I used some quantum terminology too, speaking of "collapsing the wave function". The same concepts apply to any crisis involving uncertainty about the true game state, so I dislike using the term to identify this one in particular. I think of it as the Proposal 2662 Crisis. Admittedly, the extent of uncertainty in this crisis was unusually great. -zefram
