Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I forgot you also disputed the orange ribbon. I retract any and all CFJs and call using Shinies a CFJ with the following statement. "G. was the speaker from September 28, 2017 to October 2 2017" On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:38 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an > officer in the > > IADoP's (as it then was,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > A related (but different) case was the one where I was listed as an officer > in the > IADoP's (as it then was, IIRC) report as holding an office, but not in the > Registrar's > report. Since officeholding is restricted to players, it was held that the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 00:33 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith wrote: > > > The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is > > that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the > > past. Notably,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 at 20:26 Alex Smith wrote: > The minimal gamestate change required to make Quazie the speaker is > that Quazie is now the speaker. We're changing the present, not the > past. Notably, we're not changing /why/ Quazie is the speaker; that's > arguably

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2017-10-08 at 20:17 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie > > > > speaker

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

On Sun, 2017-10-08 at 20:17 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie > > > speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I think it would revoke G.'s Transparent Ribbon (if indeed it was awarded); if the report had been true and correct, then G.'s attempt to award emself the ribbon would have failed. As a result, the gamestate now would not have a Transparent Ribbon. Ratification generally can (and should, for good

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I would be happy to call a CFJ, but I am unsure of how to effectively word it. On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it didn't work. -Aris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

 It seems in the past we ignored what the minimal possible change was and just assumed it didn't change the gamestate until the ratification. This is clean, but it leaves problems, like what we are running into now. On 10/08/2017 08:19 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: This is what CFJs are for. If the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I think G's right in how it has been treated in the past. But we can just self-ratify my current report, which lists G. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at > all, right? > > On Mon, Oct 9,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

This is what CFJs are for. If the judge can't figure it out, then it didn't work. -Aris On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:18 PM VJ Rada wrote: > Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at > all, right? > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

Well hey if we can't discern the minimal change then it didn't work at all, right? On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what > constitutes the minimal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

This really boils down to a philosophical and logistical discussion of what constitutes the minimal change. On 10/08/2017 08:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified report I was Speaker and used some speaker powers. I'd say the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

My guess is that doesn't work because up until the date of the ratified report I was Speaker and used some speaker powers. I'd say the minimal change is just that the switch got flipped to Quazie magically upon the date of the report. But who knows maybe you're right. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

No, it isn't. If we let my current ADoP report self-ratify though, it will be fixed. Or Quazie you could resign from speaker allowing me to appoint G. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, VJ Rada wrote: > Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

Isn't the minimal change to the gamestate required to make Quazie speaker just not having me have appointed you speaker before now? On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now. > > On

DIS: Re: BUS: Making Quazie not the speaker aka who let me write self-ratifying reports because they should be fired.

I don't think the conditions allowing you to appoint me exist right now. On Mon, 9 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > My "Final Metareport" self-ratified. It is listed as being effective > as of October 2, 4 days after G. should have been the speaker. > > I appoint G. speaker. > > -- > From V.J.