On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Michael Norrish <michael.norr...@nicta.com.au> wrote: > This attitude was certainly one I held when we began the game. I later > proposed > a “document-centric” view of things, whereby the state was defined to be > whatever the contents of the document said it was, but with some (unspecified) > means of redress if it was believed that the documents had the “wrong” > contents. > I thought this was more pragmatic/realistic, and, as I recall, Kelly agreed > with me. The idea didn’t stick. > > Michael
It did. A number of our reports now use a mechanism to cause them to be considered true if they go unchallenged for a week. This caused an amusing situation recently when two self-ratifying reports effectively disagreed as to whether or not I was a player. -scshunt
