> On Sep 8, 2017, at 12:50 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> This appears to be more valid, though I’ll still need to sanity-check it. >> Notably, several rewards which I had previously thought would be invalidated >> are instead permitted. I’ve still avoided breaking any proposals or CFJs, >> but given the duration, I can only attribute that to the AP system taking up >> most of the slack. > > How does this interact with already effected self-ratifications, and with > flipping of the Floating Value?
Existing self-ratifying reports aren’t a problem. Publishing a new, corrected report will deal with them by self-ratifying, assuming nobody finds an error in it at that time. The Floating Value problem is much, much stickier, and I’m grateful (see me grating? I’m grating.) to you for calling attention to it. I’d have to check to be sure, but I’m reasonably confident that _none_ of my announced actions flipping the Floating Value were correct, and therefore that it has never changed except for the sole time the Registrar’s report included it. That would invalidate quite a lot of gameplay. Honourable Assessor, on the outside chance that an error is found in either your or the Promotor’s reports related to this situation that would cast doubt on your assessments, please cite my existing CFJ. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
