On Sun, 2026-05-31 at 09:58 +0200, Salad via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 5/31/26 08:35, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > On 5/31/26 02:21, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > > On 5/27/26 19:32, Salad via agora-business wrote:
> > > > I intend, without objection, to clean rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need
> > > > Apply"), replacing the word "ut" with "it".
> > > >
> > > > Note that, to my knowledge, this typo was never passed as part of any
> > > > proposal. Instead, it appears to have been introduced as part of the
> > > > March 22nd 2026 SLR [0].
> > >
> > > I object. The error does not actually exist in the Rule; the correct
> > > remedy is a CoE.
> > >
> >
> > ... Ah, sorry, I should have said earlier: Thank you for pointing this
> > out! This is a small procedural thing; you've not done anything wrong.
> >
> No worries! Agora is a game *about* small procedural things in my book,
> and if said small procedural thing gets it fixed earlier, then who am I
> to complain? I wasn't sure about this myself, that's why I added the
> context.
>
> I think I got mixed up by the recent ratification. To clarify: If a more
> recent ruleset had been ratified, would the typo then have become part
> of the Rule (and cleaning have been the correct remedy)?
Yes, ratifying the report would have changed the rule to match the
report (in a sort-of retroactive way: we imagine what would have
happened if we had changed the gamestate at the time of the report to
match the report, and then change the gamestate now to match the
results of the "what would have happened" hypothetical, which is like a
retroactive change except that it doesn't actually change the history).
That's one of the main reasons to ratify things: so that the actual
gamestate doesn't end up deviating from the reported gamestate.
--
ais523
