It seems in the past we ignored what the minimal possible change was
and just assumed it didn't change the gamestate until the ratification.
This is clean, but it leaves problems, like what we are running into now.
On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
