Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a good way to get more involved in gameplay.
-Aris On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > > > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > > > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. > > > > Why not? > > > > Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) > committed by publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is > changed to what it would have been if the report were as true and accurate > as possible. That means that the gamestate also changes whether a violation > was committed—because that’s part of the gamestate itself. > > > > To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It > would be INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true > and accurate at the time they were published. Upon ratification the > gamestate is changed to what it would be if the reports were as true and > accurate as possible (which is 100% true and accurate). That means that the > game state is changed to make any blot levying INEFFECTIVE. > > Unsolicited thoughts: > > I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the > gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be > judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE. > > Before you ratified the statement, I think it's clear Aris's attempt > was EFFECTIVE according to the Rules. I think there are then two > questions: (a) did your ratification create some legal fiction that > the attempt was INEFFECTIVE, in contradiction to reality; and (b) if > so, should the CFJ's judge respect that legal fiction? > > For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really > defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the > facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in > the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would > imply (a) is false. > > For (b), R591 says: "TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually > and logically true" (and similarly for FALSE). If other Rules say > something that contradicts reality, should "factually ..." refer to > this legal fiction or to reality? I don't see any reason the rules > should override reality in this case. >
