Comments inline. I think I agree with the gist of this, but there are parts I'm confused about, and also, I don't quite buy one of your arguments (but it could be because I'm confused).
> Rule 1551 states that the gamestate is "minimally modified to make the > ratified document as true and accurate as possible". I find that it > would be less true and accurate for only the history of the instances of > the switch to be updated than for both the history and value to be > updated. Thus, at the modification date, the two instances of Publicity > were in fact flipped, and their values did change; this rules out > interpretation c. Okay, I'm with you so far. It's reasonable that interpretation c is ruled out by "as true and accurate as possible". > However, I also find that changing the gamestate after the modification > date is not required for the document to be true and accurate, and doing > so would constitute additional changes besides the minimum modification > required by Rule 1551. This applies both to Falsifian's suggested "then > immediately after, became Public fora again" (from option b), and what I don't understand this part. Under R1551, ratification only involves simulating change at one single past time, so what do you mean by "changing the gamestate after the modification date"? Do you mean inserting additional past events into the gamestate, as my interpretation (b) does? If so, I think the argument could be refined a bit: A possible objection to your argument is that removing the extra two events from (b) would turn it into (c), and you already ruled out (c) in the previous paragraph --- doesn't it follow that the extra two events in (b) actually are necessary? One way around this is to not focus on the "true and accurate" part in this paragraph. Aesthetically, (a) just feels like a more "minimal" change than (b) --- inserting all four events feels less minimal than inserting the two events and also making the change, which is a natural consequence. Maybe it's more "minimal" in the sense that it minimizes discord, or minimizes the number of steps that aren't intuitively "necessary". Anyway, I guess all I'm saying is this argument seems stronger if you make no mention of the "true and accurate" part, and just consider the concept of "minimally modified" in isolation. Another approach: I could believe that (b) is less "appropriate" than (a), for similar aesthetic reasons. > the caller appears to be arguing for - changing all future values of the > switches (until they are flipped again). I think "what the caller appears to be arguing for" could be clarified. I think they may be referring to the following quoted text by me: | "Change the | gamestate to what it would be if a-b and a-o's publicity had been | switched to Discussion at time X and then switched back to Public at | time Y, so that none of the intervening messages on either list were | sent via a public forum" If so, note that the CFJ supposes that *two* documents are ratified, so the second switch would come from the second document being ratified. > Because ratification of the document in question does not the values of Missing a word between "not" and "the". > the switches immediately after the modification date, their values > remain Public. As a consequence, by the definition of "flip" in Rule > 2162, immediately after the modification date, the switches have been > "flipped" back to Public, as the switches came to have a value of Public > solely through a lack of change by ratification, which was different > from their previous value of Discussion. Wait, I'm confused. Which document are you talking about? And what does "solely through a lack of change by ratification" mean? > The ratification of the document would have the effects specified in > interpretation a, even if it would also have the effects specified in > interpretation b. TRUE. I've lost track of what's going on. I think part of the problem is that I'm not sure which interpretation you believe the caller was advocating for, and another part is that there are two documents and a lot of this ruling doesn't make clear which one it's talking about. - Falsifian
