> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
> had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively
> accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.
Why not?
Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) committed by
publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is changed to what it
would have been if the report were as true and accurate as possible. That means
that the gamestate also changes whether a violation was committed—because
that’s part of the gamestate itself.
To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It would be
INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true and accurate
at the time they were published. Upon ratification the gamestate is changed to
what it would be if the reports were as true and accurate as possible (which is
100% true and accurate). That means that the game state is changed to make any
blot levying INEFFECTIVE.
