I think it would revoke G.'s Transparent Ribbon (if indeed it was awarded); if the report had been true and correct, then G.'s attempt to award emself the ribbon would have failed. As a result, the gamestate now would not have a Transparent Ribbon.
Ratification generally can (and should, for good reasons) have such knock-on effects. A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an officer in the IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as holding an office, but not in the Registrar's report. Since officeholding is restricted to players, it was held that the IADoP report ratifying made me a player in addition to the officeholder. The "minimal change" language is intended to prevent players from arguing that some other unrelated change is made (e.g. the corrective gamestate change also including unrelated changes such as transferring all of Agora's stamps to me). Other ways that it can fail are adding "inconsistencies between the rules and the game state", such as setting a switch to nonexistent value, "no such modification is possible", which I think can only occur if the ratification change would be overruled by a higher rule,; and "multiple such modifications would be equally appropriate", which I think would avoid ruling out a ratification such as "There is one player who owns exactly 73 shinies", without specifying the player, so that any one player having their numbers of shinies changed would make the ratification correct. On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:17 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 > >> > >
