Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Michael wrote: >> And I claim that a "deeming" event *factually* changes the set of >> legal fictions that we have to respect.
> Let me be clear, I am only objecting to a very narrow type of deeming. > I would not object to: > "Be it hereby proclaimed that Goethe is deregistered." > I would also not object to: > "Be it hereby proclaimed that Goethe is retroactively > deregistered, [and actions and 'truth' back to the date > of deregistration be interpreted as if e weren't a player > at the time]." > These are both valid legislative Orders, and the Orders are the > causative agent (even retroactively. Although that's gone from > the Ruleset, it's not forbidden). Good. I feel that Zefram is objecting to the latter (but perhaps I am mis-representing him, in which case I apologise), and I object to his objection, so I feel as if I have gained an Ally, even if that Ally is deregistered :-) > What I object to is: > "Be it hereby proclaimed that Rule R be interpreted > [and by implication, be interpreted in similar > future cases] so that Rule R caused Goethe to be > deregistered." > This is, in effect, re-writing Rule R to be the causative agent, > without a Rule Change and perhaps at too low a power to amend Rule > R. Even if the interpretation is "reasonable" where Rule R was > unclear, it is still contradicting a judicial interpretation. > Either way, the Legislative Order conflicts with Rule R or the > judicial system, in that it orders players to deem something legal > that is in fact against the rules. This is certainly an interesting one. And the rules do specify that the methods in 105 are the only way in which rules may be changed. However, the 105/106 combination doesn't specify that accumulated (judicial) decisions as to how rules should be interpreted can not be changed by proposal. Again, I make the claim that these decisions are clearly part of the game-state (they're even recorded in an officially maintained document), so 106 explicitly says we can change them. I agree that it's aesthetically ugly, but I think the real problem lies in 106 and the use of the phrase "gamestate", which is nowhere defined, and which with a common-sense interpretation encompasses far too much. Best, Michael.
