On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:08 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:57 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > ais523 wrote:
> >
> > > I submit the following proposal (AI=3, II=1, Title="Combining the
> > > Gamestates"):
> >
> > Ow. We really should just be able to do this:
> >
> > "Ratify the following document: {{{ tusho was a player
> > during <time periods>. }}}"
> >
> > and have it clearly generate knock-on effects similar to those listed
> > in your proposal.
> >
> > Or, using the (albeit controversial) form that I think I used to
> > patch over the Annabel crisis, among other occasions:
> >
> > "Upon the adoption of this proposal, the gamestate becomes
> > what it would have been if tusho had been a player during
> > <time periods>."
> Actually, I was surprised at how short it was. Our ratification is
> working well; probably the other things that need to self-ratify are
> these:
> - the existence of a CFJ
> - the success of a deputised action
> - the verdict of a CFJ
> Apart from that, everything turned out fine.
On the other hand, the claim of identity made by a message is something
that probably does /not/ need to self-ratify; instead, it should just be
restricted to which person sent the message. That would prevent stupid
tricks like Phill from damaging the gamestate (although not an Annabel
crisis).
Actually, probably the IADoP's report should self-ratify; that /would/
stop an Annabel crisis AFAICT.
--
ais523
