Actually my point (2) was my greater worry, not rules. It implies that
your ratification may be utterly meaningless for the purpose you made it
for - it creates an agency with a legally tweaked age but changes nothing
in the past that depended on whether it existed on that date.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
I ratify this:
{{There is an agency with the following text.
"G: Overlord of Dunce (GOD)
Head: Quazie
Agents: G.
Powers: 1 - The ability to give notice to establish Agencies with
Quazie as the Director or Head and G. as the only agent
2 - The ability to establish Agencies with Quazie as the Director or
Head and G. as the only agent".
That agency was established by a message sent by Quazie, purporting to
establish a message called "G is Overlord of Dunce", but the name of
the agency is, and has been since its establishment, "G: Overlord of
Dunce"}}
Don't worry about it affecting rules, it doesn't.
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 09:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
[snip]
As others have mentioned, this kind of ratification has problems. The
system is designed to ratify _old documents_ with _simulated
retroactivity_ - not a _new_ document containing _retroactive claims_. I
see at least two issues:
(1) The impossibility of rule changes, that others have mentioned.
(2) It is really not obvious what
"the gamestate is modified to what it would be
if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
document as true and accurate as possible"
means - what is a minimal change _at the time of publishing_ in
order to achieve a retroactive claim _much earlier_?
In your case, the minimality in (2) might plausibly mean that it simply
changes "now" the state of the agency itself - but _none_ of the
intermediate side effects on other game state that are your real reason
for wanting to save it.
(2) has already been found to be a genuine issue that can prevent
ratifications working (and was the cause of a minor crisis in the
past); proposal 6930 (2 January 2011) was the fix proposal. Reading
posts from that time is likely to have relevant discussion. (I can't
find a relevant CFJ; that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't
one, of course, as searching old CFJs can be hard.)
--
ais523
--
From V.J. Rada
