> On May 26, 2019, at 7:41 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

I respectfully disagree with this analysis.  

I think the EFFECTIVENESS of an action is a rule-created legal fact, not a 
statement about realities in the world. Aris attempted to do something; whether 
it was EFFECTIVE can be changed retroactively. That was what we all assumed 
when we retroactively fixed intents.  All of our intents were INEFFECTIVE for a 
long time. Then they were retroactively fixed by rule. 

And R591 says that the CFJ should be “based on the facts and legal situation 
*at the time the inquiry case was initiated*, not taking into account any 
events since that time.”   I called the CFJ after I ratified the documents, so 
that my reports were factually accurate retroactively and, therefore, any 
attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. 

I think Falsifian’s analysis would mean that intents weren’t actually fixed 
after all, which would be a problem. 



 

Reply via email to