On 2/1/20 7:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 2/1/20 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider. > I self-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ 3788. > >
Alright, a less insane and non-procrastinated draft judgement that I can leave up for more than a day: REVISED JUDGEMENT IN CFJ 3788 In this judgement, I will use the "effective date" as listed in the document, and the "modification date" as "Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019". Rule 1551/20 states that > When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified, > rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is 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; however, if the > document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the > time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine > the minimal modifications. First, I find that Rule 1551's clause about "multiple substantially distinct possible modifications" being equally appropriate does not apply; I believe that exactly one of Falsifian's offered interpretations must be platonically correct, and that judgement must therefore be more "appropriate" than the other interpretations. So, the ratification did not fail for this reason. Next, we must consider what changes happen if "the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible [on the effective date]." In this case, the changes are relatively simple. The primary change is that "At [the modification date], the fora agora-official and agora-business became discussion fora." By the definition of "to become X" in Rule 2162/13, this means that the Publicities of the two Fora were flipped to Discussion at the modification date. So, the gamestate would be modified at the effective date by 1) changing the value of both Publicity switches to Discussion, since nothing had flipped them in the intervening second and 2) updating the historical record between the modification date and the effective date. Falsifian suggests that it would be more minimal for the gamestate to be changed only by updating the historical record. I find that this would be less "true and accurate" to the document than flipping the switch and including all consequences of the switch being flipped, and so is not what happens. E also suggests that only updating the value of the switches at the modification date, and not any later time (thus causing the switches to revert back to Public). Although this would mean that less of the historical record has to be updated, this would again arguably be less "true and accurate" to the document, which does not at all suggest that it inserts additional historical events into the record that revert what it has already done. Additionally, this interpretation would likely break self-ratification of switch reports, which would be against the best interests of the game, so Rule 217 suggests that I should reject it. Now, we must consider what the current gamestate would be if the previous description was true at the effective date. This would include 1) updating the history back to the modification date, and through to the present, and 2) since nothing else had flipped the publicity of either forum (until the hypothetical second document was ratified), would flip the values of the Publicity switches to Discussion in the present. These events are consistent with what the caller labels interpretation a. TRUE. -- Jason Cobb
