On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that's act-on-behalf or ratifying claims of identity out the > window then (not that this is necessarily bad...).
The latter, anyway. Not sure about the former-- "who did X at time Y" cannot refer to something after time Y except through a legal fiction, and I don't think that we should infer the ruleset creates legal fictions without provocation. The ruleset is free to clarify what it means to do X-- but it must do so at time Y, not afterwards! ...This will be a fun CFJ. Anyone remember off-hand if ratification being broken would have ended the game at any point? -- -c.
