FTR, for obvious reasons ratification is secured at power 3, so it takes an AI 3 proposal to ratify something,
-Aris On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > It is, as far as I can tell, always possible to unilaterally prevent > ratification without objection, and to prevent self-ratification, if you > have the will to do so. Ratification by proposal is harder to stop > single-handedly, but you can always outline your objections in plain > language and hope people vote against the proposal. > > -o > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:24 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I dont like the taste of it at all but oh well. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> You couldn't be carded. Speaking for myself though, I would >> disapprove. Ratification seems like the best way out of this mess. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Proto-actions: >> > >> > I object to the latest Stamps Addendum and the latest weekly Secretary’s >> > report on grounds that their author has included information which is >> > inaccurate. >> > >> > I Point a Finger to myself for harming gameplay interests via the >> > objection >> > above. >> > >> > ---- >> > >> > Would I be carded? Is disagreeing to including false information like >> > this >> > (for the greater good of the flow of gameplay) "bad"? >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sure but it can also be used to fix things everyone agrees is wrong. >> >> If you want to object to o.'s reports I guess, do so. We'll figure it >> >> out some way. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Really? I thought it was to "anchor" the gamestate in case of dispute >> >> > or >> >> > ambiguity so that the game can continue, but here there really isnt >> >> > one. >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> i mean, that's why ratification exists. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Knowingly including inaccurate information doesn't feel right to >> >> >> > me. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 10:47 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Let's just ratify everyone who we thought had stamps into >> >> >> >> > having >> >> >> >> > them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not objecting to my last Stamps Addendum or my last weekly >> >> >> >> Secretary’s >> >> >> >> report will do that, thankfully. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -o >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> From V.J Rada >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J Rada >> > >> > > > >
