In light of this confusion about the nature of ratification, what if
the proposal were instead to say something like this:
////
1. D. Margaux's and G.'s respective coin holdings are changed to
whatever amounts they would have had at the time this proposal is
ADOPTED, if at the time of the Treasuror’s report of 18 October 2018
their coin holdings had been as follows:
||Coins ||
+----------++------+
|D. Margaux|| 62 ||
|G. || 42 ||
+----------++------+
2. D. Margaux and G. are each awarded the Patent Title "Bank Robber."
/////
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:00 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > This is very weird phrasing to me. You can backdate ratification, so
> > > possibly
> > > better phrasing: "The following list is Ratified as being an accurate
> > > list
> > > of
> > > coin holdings for 18 Oct 2018". Maybe no big deal tho.
> >
> > I think I've quibbled in the past that the ratification rule is written such
> > that it _isn't_ clear what happens when specifically constructing documents
> > speaking about the past in order to ratify them.
> >
> > This is because what's a "minimal change" to the game state to make the
> > document true is calculated for the time of document publishing, _not_ for
> > the
> > time of the referenced date, and so the more game state changes have
> > happened
> > between the times, the more the actual effect may be different from what you
> > intuitively wanted to happen.
>
> How is this different than self-ratification - when it self-ratifies a week
> after publication, it ratifies the past condition as being true as of that
> past date, correct? If not, we're really messed up.
>
