On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:58, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM James Cook via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > > > > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > > > > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > > > > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > > > > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > > > > up in the problem you consider in your judgement. > > > > > > I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical > > > record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal > > > probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an > > > afterthought, anyway). > > > > I'm not sure that would break it, though. A ratified document saying > > "switch instance X has value Y" in the present tense pretty clearly > > forces the minimally modified gamestate to include that switch value > > in order to be "as true and accurate as possible"; I don't think the > > historical record comes into it. Aris's documents were instead written > > as facts about the past. > > Well, technically they were a second in the past, yes. I don't see why > that changes the situation as far as the history goes though. > > -Aris
Hm... okay, I guess if they had been written as "At this instant, the fora agora-official and agora-bisuness become discussion fora" then Jason's judgement would also seem to apply. I guess it's writing it as "this changed happened" vs "this is the value of the switch" that I believe would affect whether the issues Jason considers are relevant. - Falsifian
