omd wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> This point has generated quite a bit of discussion lately, not to
>>> mention that current precedent is that it's false; I think just
>>> stating it as true without any justification is unreasonable.
>>
>> Which precedent? Â Anyway, I believe my other interpretations are
>> sufficient to lead to the assigned judgements regardless of how
>> ratification works.
>
> Ratification is not obviously broken if the gamestate includes its
> history. ais523 assumed it doesn't in eir judgement of CFJ 2909:
>
>> it instead tries to work out a minimal change to the /present/ gamestate to
>> change the past.
I interpreted that judgement as
1) the gamestate may or may not include history, but in either case
2) the previous version of Rule 1551 was broken because it applied a
legal fiction to a past event, but did not apply a legal fiction
to subsequent events dependent on that past event.
