> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:48 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.That’s why I specifically identified the document (well, fragment of a document) I was attempting to ratify. However, I wasn’t sure it would work, so I’m not surprised to hear confirmation that it won’t. However… > 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.) …the document fragment I’m attempting to ratify actually was published on the date it would be useful for the FV to have taken that value on. This objection alone might not be sufficient. > 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. Does this imply that my attempt to retroactively create dated pledges by proposal didn’t work? If so, no big deal - that proposal intentionally made enforcement of pledges more social and less ludic, and I expect Agorans will likely enforce the two affected pledges in the spirit in which they were made. But it’s an important thing for me to be aware of if I ever try a stunt like that again. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
