This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it didn't work.
-Aris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM 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 >
