Zefram wrote: > Michael Norrish wrote: >> And I claim that a "deeming" event *factually* changes the set of >> legal fictions that we have to respect.
> Deeming is not an event. It is the origin of a counterfactual context. I deem something. What just happened? An event of deeming. >> It is clear that the rules >> support the notion of legal fictions, and that they exist. Therefore >> they are part of our game-state. > The Rules do not support an arbitrary set of legal fictions that are > in effect in the game generally. They support certain narrow types > of legal fiction that they specifically mention. I think that rather the rules explicitly support an arbitrary set of legal decisions, which accumulate until deemed invalid. This set of decisions guides play, and is recorded in an official document. We can change that document at any point, thereby creating nonsensical interpretations or legal fictions or whatever we choose. >> As Murphy says, one might also see ratification as the creation of a >> legal fiction. In that case, the language has it that we simply >> assert that the game-state changes, but it seems pretty similar. > That's entirely different. Here the Rules change the actual > gamestate. They do not change the history, of who sent which > message, nor do they deem the history to be other than what it > really is. All they change is the state of entities that are > defined purely by the Rules. I don't see that it's different at all. The interpretations of rules, and the legal decisions that guide play are just as much a part of the game state as Players' registration status. The problem is that 106 is too broad. It should allow for changes to the "current versions" of Official Documents, and Rule Changes, and very little else. In particular, it should not allow for changes to official legal history. Michael.
