Because of the phrasing of the rules, a document purporting to resolve a decision doesn't ratify itself as a resolution and per Rule 208, changes to the gamestate take effect upon resolution. Additionally the specification of item 3 in Rule 2034 implies that other gamestate changes do not self-ratify.
On 11/08/2017 06:29 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Why doesn't ratifying the outcome ratify consequences of it? I'm struggling > with that. > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 05:48 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
