Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Pre-Resolution of Victory Election
On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 05:38 -0700, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
> Let me try again, I hereby ratify the following document without
> objection: {{Votes on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election are
> votes on the most recent successful attempt.}}
You forgot "intend", and you're still effectively making a statement
about the future. Say something like "All attempts to votes on a
Victory Elections so far were made on the most recent attempt to
initiate a Victory Election". That said, I'm not sure I agree with the
principle anyway; with something like this, which is likely to lead to
scamming, it seems unfair to disrupt attempts to invalidate other
people's votes via claiming they were ambiguous.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Pre-Resolution of Victory Election
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> Let me try again, I hereby ratify the following document without
> objection: {{Votes on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election
> are votes on the most recent successful attempt.}}
I'd object to this myself, still too vague, and ratifying "any"
is a bad idea.
Do it this way: Make an actual report of actual votes you want to
count, and try to ratify that specific voting result. Note which
votes would and wouldn't count if you didn't ratify things.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Pre-Resolution of Victory Election
Let me try again, I hereby ratify the following document without objection:
{{Votes on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election are votes on the most
recent successful attempt.}}
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2017-06-19 at 18:30 -0400, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> wrote:
>>> I hereby ratify the following document without objection: {{Votes
>>> on any attempt to initiate a Victory Election shall be counted as
>>> votes on the most recent successful attempt.}}
>>
>> I object, and I'm pretty sure this wouldn't do anything if ratified
>> (the statement could only be made true through a rule change, yet the
>> document doesn't specify the exact change). :p
>
> Just a reminder for everyone, as there have been several mistakes with
> this recently: ratification isn't a method of making rulings on "what
> should have happened", and can't "see" history; it's a method of
> changing the current gamestate to match the results of what a
> retroactive change would have been. In particular, the ratification
> mechanism mostly assumes that you're ratifying a true statement, and if
> you want to ratify a /false/ statement, that statement mustn't in of
> itself have any awareness that it's false.
>
> --
> ais523
