Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a
reply to Charles Walker.

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> You write:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> Jason Cobb
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:12 PM Charles Walker <charles.w.wal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
>> > 3726 a couple of times.
>> Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
>> into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
>> argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
>> have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.
>> > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
>> > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
>> > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
>> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
>> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
>> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
>> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
>> otherwise via legal fiction?
>> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
>> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
>> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
>> ratification.

Reply via email to