> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what was actually ratified was limited by self-ratification:
>
>> I agree with scshunt that history CAN be subject to ratification, but
>> *not* that it is subject to self-ratification. That is, the self-
>> ratification of a report fact ("as of this date, scshunt was a player")
>> does not ratify the state of play the instant before that report was
>> made. In particular, R2139 explicitly only governs the set of players
>> at a particular instant (the instant of the report), and R2138 only
>> governs the older of each office at a particular instant. The strict
>> wording of *exactly* what is self-ratified (state) precludes any
>> ratification of when or how that state came to be, historically.
>>
>> An explicit ratification process could do so, by (e.g. without
>> objection) ratifying that the statement in question was true at an
>> earlier date from the report.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
>
> ...However, in retrospect, I'm not sure that judgement actually makes
> sense. Rule 1551 states (and stated at the time):
>
> When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
> at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
> been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
> accurate as possible; [...]
>
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
> they were published, but when they were ratified, the gamestate was
> set to "what it would be" if publishing them had changed things to
> make them true. If the gamestate includes the past, "what it would
> be" necessarily includes the fact that they were true when they were
> published (or at least immediately afterward).
>
> Not sure what to take away from that. I don't see any more recent
> CFJs about the issue.
I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right).
G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change
anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the
report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN retroactively
change the EFFECTIVENESS of actions taken during the time between the report’s
publication and its later self-ratification—I think that is consistent with
G.’s decision.
It is also demonstrated by the failure of my recent attempted PARADOX scam.
I had a PARADOX scam that hinged on an ambiguity about who the Prime Minister
was—me or ATMunn. If intents remained broken then it was one of us; if intents
were retroactively fixed then it was the other one of us. I tried to create a
PARADOX by using the Manifesto power to distribute a proposal that would fix
intents retroactively. Trying to resolve that Agoran decision would create an
infinite loop where the identity of the PM would cycle around and the
EFFECTIVENESS of the distribution-by-Manifesto cycled too.
It was foiled by the retroactive effect of a self-ratified ADoP report.
At the time I issued the attempted Manifesto, the ADoP report had been
published but had NOT self-ratified. If I had CoE’d it before ratification,
then the identity of the PM would be ambiguous and so the Manifesto attempt
would have had ambiguous EFFECTIVENESS. But I missed the ADoP report and it
later self ratified—causing the Manifesto attempt to be unambiguously
INEFFECTIVE. Which was very, very frustrating.
The facts are recounted in detail in CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724, and 3725.
I think that conclusively shows that the attempted blot levy was INEFFECTIVE.
