> 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.