CFJs are technically nonbinding, platonically, so a SHOULD is fine. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few small nitpicks: > > > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event > Consistent capitalization please :) > > > > and cannot be retroactively modified > > CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIBLE w/o time > travel, so this might not be strictly necessary > > > > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > I take issue with "should". I feel like this should be stronger, at > least SHOULD. Perhaps maybe a MUST? > > > I don't really take any issue with the substance of the proposal, it all > seems reasonable to me. > > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/21/19 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For > > instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating > > a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It > > also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events > > is secured at power 3.0. This stops lower powered rules from > > disagreeing about the sequence of events, which could potentially > > create a truly weird situation where rules of differing power had > > different visions of the past. Since this rule has to be able to > > override power 3.0 rules, and since ratification is already at power > > 3.1, my new timeline rule would be power 3.1. > > > > -Aris > > > > --- > > Title: Timeline Control Ordnance > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Enact a new power 3.1 Rule, entitled "Timelines", with the following > text: > > > > A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, > > as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". > > > > The Objective Timeline is the timeline of events as they actually > happened. > > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event are > > determined based on the conditions actually in effect when that action > > or event occurred, and cannot be retroactively modified. The Objective > > Timeline is not considered to be part of the gamestate; instead, it is > > the recording of events on reality itself, and changing it > retroactively > > without actual time travel is thus IMPOSSIBLE, rules to the contrary > > notwithstanding. > > > > The Standard Timeline is the timeline used for the purposes of > ordinary > > gameplay. By default, the Standard Timeline is considered to by > defined > > by events or actions in the same way that the Objective Timeline is. > > However, the Standard Timeline is considered to be part of the > gamestate. > > Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the > Standard > > Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually > > happen are secured at power 3. > > > > Attempted retroactive changes are to be interpreted as attempts to > change the > > Standard Timeline. All changes are to be interpreted as prospective > unless > > they are explicitly retroactive. > > > > By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule > that > > refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring > to events > > on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference > events > > in a different timeline. > > > > Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification" by changing the text "the gamestate is > modified" > > to read "the gamestate is retroactively modified". > > > > Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by changing the text > > > > "The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on > > the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was > > initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:" > > > > to read > > > > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and > legal > > situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was > > initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive > modifications > > since that time. > > > > The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows:" > -- >From R. Lee
