On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
> the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
> play out.
FWIW, that language originated with this proposal. Based on the
proposal comment and the wording itself, I think ais523 *was* trying
to have it avoid amending the past – though e didn't necessarily
succeed, considering the later judgements (including the current
ones).
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 6930 (Ordinary, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by ais523
Fix ratification
In rule 1551, replace
{{{
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is minimally
modified so that the ratified document was completely true and
accurate at the time it was published.
}}}
with
{{{
When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified to
what it would be if the ratified document had, at the time of its
publication, minimally changed the gamestate to make that document
completely true and accurate (ignoring, for the purposes of
calculating the results of that hypothetical change, restrictions
on the document's abilities to make such changes applied by the
rules or similar documents).
}}}
[In other words, this proposal causes ratification to calculate an
effect in the past and apply it to the present, rather than the other
way round, which is rather dubious. Additionally, avoids issues with
things like Power in the past preventing the change happening; and
making it clear that the "minimally" does not exclude knock-on effects.]
