Hm, maybe in the hypothetical timeline the act of publishing can be thought
of as performative, so it's by definition correct. At least, that's how I
think of messages that successfully cause actions to be performed.

Still thinking about CFJ retroactivity though.

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:36 James Cook, <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> 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