I think G's right in how it has been treated in the past. But we can just self-ratify my current report, which lists G.
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at > all, right? > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what >> constitutes the minimal change. >> >> >> >> On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> >>> My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified >>> report I was >>> Speaker and used some speaker powers. I'd say the minimal change >>> is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of >>> the report. But who knows maybe you're right. >>> >>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>>> >>>> Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie >>>> speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective >>>>>> as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker. >>>>>> >>>>>> I appoint G. speaker. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> From V.J. Rada >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From V.J. Rada >>>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
