On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
Unsolicited thoughts: I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE. Before you ratified the statement, I think it's clear Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE according to the Rules. I think there are then two questions: (a) did your ratification create some legal fiction that the attempt was INEFFECTIVE, in contradiction to reality; and (b) if so, should the CFJ's judge respect that legal fiction? For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would imply (a) is false. For (b), R591 says: "TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true" (and similarly for FALSE). If other Rules say something that contradicts reality, should "factually ..." refer to this legal fiction or to reality? I don't see any reason the rules should override reality in this case.
