On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the
> Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the
> Floating Value was as follows:
>
> {
> Floating Value: 132
> }
>
> (This is a portion of the Secretary’s report on that date.)
I don't think this works; you ratify documents, not facts.
Come to think of it, I don't think it's possible to ratify a statement
about the past unless that statement was actually published on that
date (possibly untruthfully). You can't change the present gamestate so
as to cause a change in the past, after all; and ratification uses the
time of publication of the document as the reference time to change to.
So if you want to set the gamestate as though a change had become 132
on October 3, you need to actually find a document published on October
3 that states that the Floating Value is 132. (If you attempt to ratify
a document that says "The Floating Value was 132 on October 3", nothing
changes, as there's no way to change the present gamestate to make that
true.)
I'm glad that ratification isn't more general than this; people have
been trying to use it as a general solution to problems quite a bit
recently, which it isn't really intended for. In particular, using
ratification to bypass the proposal mechanism isn't really a great
thing to do; we don't have a method of passing proposals without-
objection for a reason, and attempts to add one have been shot down in
the past.
--
ais523
