Zephram wrote: > It does not say "Goethe was deregistered". It says e "is deemed to have > been" deregistered, which clearly means that in some specific context e > is to be treated as deregistered while tactily admitting that in general > e was not in fact deregistered (or at least might not have been).
Exactly! Consider three Proposals all claiming to determine the "truth of the gamestate": Proposal A: Players are instructed to act as if Rule R was not in effect at time t. This Proposal is ordering us to behave illegally. It should be ineffective in that directly orders a violation of the rules. Proposal B: Players are instructed to act as if Provision A of Rule R, previously interpreted by a judge as X, was really interpreted as Y. Seemingly muckier, but really asking us to ignore not only the Rule, but the judge's legal interpretation. So this is Proposal A again, but even worse, in that it orders a violation of the judicial system, as well. I believe this is the case with the proposal in question. Proposal C: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the status of player P is hereby set to Y. Outside the context of Rule R, or judicial interpretation X, this legislative order sets something to Y. Assuming there's nothing inherently contradictory about Player P being Y, this should be an effective alteration of the gamestate, an alteration that comes into effect when the proposal takes effect, not altering the truth of Y prior to its taking effect. Please note, btw, that there is no longer any mention of retroactive applicability in the Ruleset. That has been repealed (and thus the Rules are silent on the legality of retroactive application). -Goethe
