> Here are the hypotheticals and my answers:
These all make sense to me, though I haven't dug too deeply.
I noticed a few things while researching whether ratification can in
some sense "change the past". I'll post separately about that,
although it looks like the CFJ won't depend on it.
> (Inc
> On May 28, 2019, at 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> One of the things that biases me towards omd's counterarguments (a
> bit, both are reasonable IMO) is that conditional votes work by
> defining when a voting value was clearly specified, which links to the
> requirement in R683.4. In gener
I’m finding this discussion so very confusing; I’m sure I’m missing something
obvious.
To me, the important point is that, by default, ratification changes the
gamestate so that the ratified document is as true and accurate as possible on
the day of PUBLISHING, not the day of RATIFICATION.
T
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
> > Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
> > ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
> > empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote:
> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report
> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the
> empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to FOR?
> That is becau
Oops, don't mind me - I see the parallel attempts now this is sooo confusing...
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> CoE: My conditional vote quoted below required the report
> ratification to go through before the voting period ended (I mis-read
> D. Margaux's ratification in
6 matches
Mail list logo
