You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.
The following document is hereby ratified:
{
On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
}
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> 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.
> >
>
