The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's definitely ambiguous.
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate > retroactively to affect any game actions that have already taken place. So, > for example, if a player’s vote is worth 0 because e has 3 blots, and it is > later determined that the verdict imposing those 3 blots was inappropriate > and is changed to a new verdict by this mechanism, then that doesn’t > retroactively increase the player’s vote strength. It just removes the blots > going forward. > > > On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > Minor comment: I know the dictionary definition of the word, but I don't > > know > > what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is there a > > legal > > term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?) > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an appropriate > > > > verdict, and SHOULD assign the appropriate verdict first-listed below > > > > and identify all other appropriate verdicts. If the delivered verdict > > > > is believed to be inappropriate, or if a verdict listed earlier below > > > > is believed to be appropriate, then any player can change it to the > > > > appropriate verdict first-listed below with 1 Agoran Consent. A player > > > > SHOULD NOT do so unless it is clear that the new verdict is an > > > > appropriate verdict, e.g. because a CFJ has determined that that is the > > > > case. Once this occurs, any effects of the of the verdict, such as > > > > blots, are prospectively undone.
