On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gratuitous: Note again, though, that if the gamestate doesn't contain > >> history, changing the gamestate to "what it would be" doesn't actually > >> create anything describable as a Legal Fiction. In that case we are > >> left with the real sequence of events. > > > > I firmly believe that the language of the proposal makes it reasonably clear > > that the effects created a fully retroactive legal fiction - the gamestate > > can't actually be "what it would have been" without the corresponding > > legal fiction that the history is also "what it would have been." > > There's no reason you can't start with a hypothetical Agora, simulate > every action that "would have been", and then-- once you have a final > state of assets, switches, rules, etc.-- modify the current gamestate > to conform with that. It's certainly nonobvious that the "gamestate" > includes not only the "state of the game" (the stuff that would be > represented by physical tokens if, say, this were a board game), but > also this extra floating information about stuff in the past that is > to be consulted in favor of the actual past.
Heh. I work with differential equations for a living as do many. The state of the system (if starting or setting to initial conditions) has to include whatever velocities or histories that are relevant to changes that propagate to the future simulation. In this case in particular, the timing of interim events are explicitly part of the *state* that propagated from a past message being retroactively voided. On another point, note that CFJ's called after the "state" was set are judged as per the current "state", so insomuch as CFJs are part of the set state, so must their answers be. > - but, for the future, I would like the gamestate to not include the > past (legislatively declaring so if necessary-- such a confusing term > deserves a definition), because it's cleaner that way-- it's easy to > determine from a report what will happen to the current-gamestate if > it's ratified, but not necessarily what will happen to the > past-gamestate, history sections often being vague or incomplete. I agree that legislative clarification would help here, strongly. There's an interesting history to "gamestate" in reset proposals along with "deem" and other terms of legal fiction that have been used until strongly questioned and then discredited due to a weakness in the boundaries of the term. -G.
