This is along the lines of my thought process and has the equivalent results in all places, the only difference is in yours the secodn works, in mine the first works.
On 11/08/2017 07:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option > selected was X" and nothing else, which is how PSS judged. > > Ratifying that the decision was "resolved as indicated" does ratify the > resolution option of X, but *additionally* ratifies that the decision > was "resolved as indicated"; that is, by a particular Decision announcement > with specified votes (and by the facts of the announcement, on a particular > date). > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> How can it be true that a decision was resolved with it being true that it >> has a resolution? >> >> To me this is like saying that if I have 5 shine sprites and spend 10, >> ratifying that I had 10 doesn't ratify that the illegal spending happened. >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, 07:33 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >>> >>> Rule 2034 self-ratifies that a decision was "resolved as indicated" and >>> this includes the "indication" that it was resolved by the document >>> purporting to be a r208 resolution announcement that was published on >>> a particular date. It doesn't say that it ratifies the "resolution" >>> (result) but that it ratifies the purported act of resolving. >>> >>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
