In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
publish inaccurate information in an official report,  but doesn't comment
on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
instant if publication, that's exactly when the change happened, so I'm not
sure what to make of it.

Also there's still the issue of the CFJ being called before it
self-ratified. I believe when rules refer to the past that's affected by
ratification, but I'm not sure about CFJs, which are explicitly said to be
about the legal situation at the time.

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux, <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the self ratification makes it retroactively  accurate though...
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in
> the
> > reports?
> >
> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified
> when
> > > the
> > > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> > false
> > > > at that exact time.
> > > >
> > > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal
> to
> > > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> > it
> > > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely
> sure,
> > > but
> > > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> > publish,
> > > or
> > > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, <dmargaux...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did.
> So
> > I
> > > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > > document.
> > > > > > E said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> > true
> > > > at
> > > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D.
> Margaux's
> > > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> > provision
> > > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> > as
> > > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > > clearly
> > > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't
> work
> > > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> > out
> > > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most
> recent
> > > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > > > effective."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
> > Margaux
> > > > has
> > > > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > > > ============
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> > > around
> > > > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > > > "[Referee]
> > > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to
> repeat
> > > > > > > everything here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > > > =====================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D.
> > Margaux
> > > > has
> > > > > 0
> > > > > > >   blots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent
> to
> > > > > ratify
> > > > > > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and
> “Spaaace
> > > > Rules”
> > > > > > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or
> the
> > > > > > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor
> > > pursuant
> > > > to
> > > > > > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the
> > > > following
> > > > > > >   weekly reports:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules.
> > All
> > > > > > >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their
> > > > default
> > > > > > >   value.}
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is
> the
> > > > > > >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules.
> > All
> > > > > > >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their
> default
> > > > > value.}
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > > > > >   information in the above reports.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act
> > on
> > > > eir
> > > > > > >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the
> > > finger
> > > > > > >   pointed".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the
> Cold
> > > Hand
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following
> > > > > message:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the
> > > > information
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > >   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > good of
> > > > > > >   > the game, but there were also other options available
> > > (proposal,
> > > > or
> > > > > > >   > ratification without objection, which would have been
> > unlikely
> > > to
> > > > > > cause any
> > > > > > >   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for
> > the
> > > > good
> > > > > > of the
> > > > > > >   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the
> > > > circumstances
> > > > > > though,
> > > > > > >   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to
> > adequately
> > > > > > consider and
> > > > > > >   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the
> rules.
> > > > > > >   >
> > > > > > >   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of
> > > Justice
> > > > on
> > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots.
> > The
> > > > > > required
> > > > > > >   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider,
> > supersubtilize,
> > > > > > >   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-26 22:50
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced
> intent
> > to
> > > > > > >   ratify.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-27 14:11
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-27 19:58
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > > > > > > ==================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a
> > fine
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of
> > > > Justice
> > > > > > > by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the
> requirements
> > > of
> > > > > > > Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run
> afoul
> > > of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> > > > > > > INEFFECTIVE if...").
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2
> > blots)
> > > > and
> > > > > > > the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence
> > > > > performing
> > > > > > > the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine
> > > (message
> > > > is
> > > > > > > copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose...").
> > > > However,
> > > > > > > Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the
> > > > information
> > > > > > > in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so
> > > > > Condition
> > > > > > > 1 does not trigger.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The officer reports were false at the time they were published.
> > For
> > > > > > > example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that
> > many
> > > > > > > players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long
> > since
> > > > > > > self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims
> > no
> > > > > > > Spaceships exist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent
> reports,
> > > > > > > D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking action, so these two
> > > conditions
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > not apply.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Conditions 4 through 8 are straightforward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore, if D. Margaux's document and reports were never
> > > ratified,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > attempted imposition would have been EFFECTIVE, and D. Margaux
> > > would
> > > > > > > have blots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. The timeline hypothesized by rule 1551
> > > > > > > =========================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When D. Margaux ratified eir document on May 26, according to
> > Rule
> > > > > 1551,
> > > > > > > the gamestate was "modified to what it would be if, at the time
> > the
> > > > > > > ratified document was published, the gamestate had been
> minimally
> > > > > > > modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as
> > > > > > > possible".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (D. Margaux specified 2019-05-20 00:00 GMT as being the time
> the
> > > > > > > document was true, but since the time was not part of the
> > document
> > > > > > > itself, it does trigger Rule 1551's clause "if the document
> > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > specifies a different past time...". Anyway, I think the
> document
> > > was
> > > > > > > published close enough to that time that the effect is the
> same.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To understand how Rule 1551 modified the gamestate, the first
> > step
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > understand the minimal modification that is hypothetically
> > applied
> > > at
> > > > > > > the time the document was published. This minimal modification
> is
> > > > > clear:
> > > > > > > all switches created directly by the Politics and Spaaace Rules
> > are
> > > > > > > modified to be at their default values, and all entities and
> > > switches
> > > > > > > created by the Clork or Astronomor according to those
> respective
> > > > Rules
> > > > > > > are removed so that they do not exist in the minimally modified
> > > > > > > gamestate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Having understood the hypothetical minimal modification, the
> next
> > > > step
> > > > > > > is to understand what would have happened from that point in
> time
> > > > > > > onward. We end up with the following timeline:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
> > > > > > > * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > > > > >   information in those reports.
> > > > > > > * D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the
> > > > > investigation.
> > > > > > > * Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the
> > attempt
> > > > is
> > > > > > >   INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ
> > > 3726
> > > > > > > would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was
> > INEFFECTIVE,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well,
> > since
> > > > D.
> > > > > > > Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee
> > report,
> > > > > > > which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. The gamestate after ratification
> > > > > > > ===================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After D. Margaux ratified eir document, the gamestate was
> > modified
> > > to
> > > > > > > what it would be in the hypothetical timeline above. Our task
> now
> > > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > > determine how that modification affects the value of the two
> > CFJs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it is clear that blot holdings are part of the
> gamestate.
> > > For
> > > > > > > one thing, they only exist because the game defines em, and are
> > > part
> > > > of
> > > > > > > the state that we keep track of, so the terms "game" and
> "state"
> > > fit.
> > > > > > > For another, blots are an asset tracked by some recordkeepor
> (the
> > > > > > > Referee), and Rule 2166 states that the portion of a
> > recordkeepor's
> > > > > > > report that lists assets is self-ratifying, which wouldn't mean
> > > much
> > > > if
> > > > > > > such assets weren't part of the gamestate. Therefore at the end
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > > > message I will judge 3727 FALSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The harder question is whether the change to the gamestate
> > affects
> > > > CFJ
> > > > > > > 3726. I believe it comes down to this question:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    Does the gamestate include information about past events,
> such
> > > as
> > > > > > >    whether the attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> > was
> > > > > > >    effective, and is CFJ 3726 referring to the information
> > > contained
> > > > in
> > > > > > >    the gamestate?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the answers are no, then CFJ 3726 should be judged TRUE, as
> > > argued
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > Section 3 above. If the answers are yes, then CFJ 3726 should
> be
> > > > judged
> > > > > > > FALSE, according to the timeline described in Section 4.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this
> message
> > I
> > > > will
> > > > > > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why
> there
> > > > could
> > > > > > > be doubt about this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
> > > > > > > =================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When the rules talk about a concept that isn't defined by the
> > > rules,
> > > > > > > we generally assume they're referring to the concept in
> reality.
> > > For
> > > > > > > example, the rules don't define what a message is, and they
> don't
> > > > > define
> > > > > > > the meaning of fundamental words like "is", "for", etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Therefore it's natural to assume that when the rules discuss
> what
> > > > > "was",
> > > > > > > they are referring to past events. I think it's defensible to
> > > assume
> > > > > > > that even if the past event being referred to is a legal
> fiction,
> > > the
> > > > > > > rules are referring to what the Rules had to say about the
> legal
> > > > > fiction
> > > > > > > in the past, rather than some new legal fiction the Rules
> > currently
> > > > > > > define about the past.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To instead say that whenever the Rules refer to the past, they
> > are
> > > > > > > referring to some fictitious past defined by the rules, could
> be
> > > said
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be a very drastic statement, requiring strong evidence to back
> it
> > > up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7. The past is part of the gamestate
> > > > > > > ====================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I think sufficient evidence does exist to say the
> > > gamestate
> > > > > > > contains information about past actions, and that the Rules
> refer
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > gamestate when they talk about the past.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7A. The text of the rules
> > > > > > > =========================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In two places, the text of the Rules seem to imply that the
> past
> > is
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of the gamestate:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule 1551 says:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification
> > (e.g. a
> > > > > > > > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from
> > > ratification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying
> > > claims
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it
> had
> > > the
> > > > > > > number of voters indicated", etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> The
> > > > > > > gamestate couldn't be "minimally modified" to make these
> > statements
> > > > > > > true in the hypothetical timeline described by Rule 1551, and
> > after
> > > > the
> > > > > > > ratification, the modified facts about the past, not being part
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > gamestate, would not be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7B. Past judgements about judgements about the past
> > > > > > > ===================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule 217 instructs us that when the text of the rules is
> silent,
> > > > > > > inconsistent or unclear, we should augment it with past
> > judgements
> > > > > > > (among other things).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > omd pointed out that the judgement CFJ 3337 [0] relied on
> > > > > > > past events being part of the gamestate. Judge G.'s judgement
> of
> > > that
> > > > > CFJ
> > > > > > > relied on the assertion that after a document stating the past
> > date
> > > > of
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > player's registration was ratified, that player became eligible
> > to
> > > > vote
> > > > > > > in a decision they otherwise would not have been eligible for,
> > > > because
> > > > > > > the text of the ratified document implied that they were
> > registered
> > > > at
> > > > > > > the start of the voting period.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The judgement of CFJ 2491 [1] also relied on precedent being
> part
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > game state: Judge Yally's judgement was that since a document
> was
> > > > > > > ratified implying that Rodlen became an officer sufficiently
> long
> > > ago
> > > > > > > for em to be awarded a green ribbon, e should be awarded a
> green
> > > > > ribbon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Both of these judgements support the conclusion that the past
> is
> > > part
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the gamestate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7C. The best interests of the game
> > > > > > > ==================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule 217 also instructs us to consider the best interests of
> the
> > > > game.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Generally, the purpose of gamestate changes such as the effect
> of
> > > > > > > ratification is to clarify the current situation in the game in
> > > order
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > allow play to continue smoothly. Consider the following
> examples
> > > > where
> > > > > > > rules make actions possible or required depending on what
> > happened
> > > in
> > > > > > > the past:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Rule 2555: "If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged
> > any
> > > > > > >   blots from emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1
> > > blot
> > > > > > >   from emself by announcement."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Rule 2496: Whether a player can earn a reward depends on
> > whether
> > > > they
> > > > > > >   have fulfilled the condition in the past 7 days, and also on
> > > > whether
> > > > > e
> > > > > > >   has already claimed that reward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Many rules allow or require a player to take an action "in a
> > > timely
> > > > > > >   fashion" after a past event.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a ratification event clarifies the current situation in
> the
> > > > game,
> > > > > > > it would be helpful if the above examples are among the things
> > that
> > > > are
> > > > > > > clarified. For example, after ratification of a document
> implying
> > > > > > > whether or not a player has gained blots in the current week,
> > that
> > > > > > > player can confidently know whether they are able to expunge a
> > > blot.
> > > > > All
> > > > > > > other things being equal, I think it is in the best interests
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > game if ratification clarifies these examples.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (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.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could at this point try to pick and choose just those
> elements
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > past are directly relevant: e.g. since D. Margaux didn't have
> any
> > > > blots
> > > > > > > to begin with, CFJ 3726 is not relevant to whether e can
> expunge
> > > any
> > > > > > > blots, so CFJ 3726 may not matter to the best interests of the
> > > game.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > I think that would be overcomplicating things. If the gamestate
> > > > > includes
> > > > > > > the effectiveness of some past actions, it is natural to assume
> > it
> > > > > > > includes the effectiveness of all of them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 8. It depends on what the meaning of the word "was" was
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's still a question of interpreting CFJ 3726 itself. I
> have
> > > > > > > concluded that when the Rules refer to the effectiveness of
> past
> > > > > > > actions, they are referring to information in the gamestate
> about
> > > the
> > > > > > > past. But CFJ 3726 is not a rule. What does "was effective"
> mean
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > statement in CFJ 3726?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule 591 has guidance on delivering judgements:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows,
> based
> > on
> > > > > > > > the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case
> was
> > > > > > > > initiated, not taking into account any events since that
> time:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > > > > > >   logically false
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > > > > > >   logically true
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe "legal situation" means I should base my decision on
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > > > rules say. Moreover, the CFJ process is more useful if
> judgements
> > > on
> > > > > > > statements agree with what the rules say about those
> statements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I will interpret "was effective" as referring to
> information
> > > > about
> > > > > > > the past contained in the gamestate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 9. Judgement
> > > > > > > ============
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I judge CFJ 3726 FALSE.
> > > > > > > I judge CFJ 3727 FALSE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
> > > > > > > [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2491
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > D. Margaux
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> D. Margaux
>

Reply via email to