Documents do self-ratify on a date, but decisions specify that only the outcome, existence of the decision, and if it was a proposal, adoption ratify. Decisions are different in the way that they ratify. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 10:11 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an >> unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating >> the outcome." Given that the decision was not unresolved, G. could not >> resolve the election. According to Rule 2043, the purported resolution >> ratified, the decision's existence and outcome. However per Rule 208, >> gamestate changing effects occur at the resolution of the decision and >> the decision had been resolved, so the gamestate had already changed. >> Rule 2043 does not provide that the resolution date ratifies or that >> effects ratify, therefore the document purported ratification, but was >> not a ratification and therefore the facts ratify, but no further >> effects occured. >> > > I'm not sure this makes sense. > > Previous to its ratification, the decision had never been resolved. Once it > was ratified that the decision was resolved, then the minimum modifications > to the gamestate must be made assuming that "the decision was resolved" was > true at the time of its resolution. That would necessarily imply the game > state changes that follow out of the decision resolution had to have > happened. I don't think you can get around that by saying that the > dependent effect doesn't ratify; that would undermine the whole use of > ratification to paper over mistakes with dependent effects.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
