> When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player > who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out: > R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We > have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean > anything outside the Rules. > > But, "at the time..." does mean something outside the Rules, so I > think it's reasonable for the judge's first step to be to unwrap that > as the equivalent statement: R(time CFJ was called*, [action A was > EFFECTIVE]). If the Rules say that's wrong, then of course it's wrong, > but if the Rules are silent on the matter it seems reasonable.
I think I messed up my example. I shouldn't have focused on the time the CFJ was called; that's not relevant to my exposition. Add one more step: the judge expands R(time CFJ was called, [action A was EFFECTIVE]) as R(time CFJ was called, [at the time action A was attempted, the attempt was successful]) which becomes, unless the Rules say otherwise, R(the time action A was attempted, [the attempt was successful]) that's what's relevant here, I think. Again, the point is just to say that there is a consistent world-view where the gamestate doesn't include whether past actions were effective, but intents are still fixed and everything works pretty much as we expect. And this is the way I was assuming the game works.