On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > This, unfortunately for em, does not work, as there is no > gamestate by which Rule 1551 would actually make that change. Agoran > precedence has long held that no entity can set up a delayed effect of this > form, so there is no reason that ratification would suddenly be able to do > so.
There is no delayed effect here. The document is a sort of prophecy, which states that something will happen in its future. Looking at it from the present, we can say the prophecy is true if Rule 1551 does actually make the specified change at the time of ratification, false if ratification has occurred but the change has not, and still undetermined otherwise. If the document does ever get ratified, Rule 1551 will change the gamestate so that it is true, but in the mean time, it is neither true nor false. > I do not believe the reasonability defense applies here as there is no > Agoran precedence precedent, but I think the above argument is reasonable even if the court ends up disagreeing with it (although it's moot because the document won't be ratified). > Accordingly, I judge this case GUILTY. Note also that, whether or not it was actually illegal, I have already been punished for this particular action: I NoVed myself for violating Rule 2215 (Truthiness), and closed the NoV. I appeal this jugement.
