On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 19:19, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you got rid of the bit about inconsistency between the rules and > gamestate, then I don't think there's a lot of substantial difference > between the choices, on the axes you care about. The only thing I can think > of is that mine is unclear whether creating a legal fiction also triggers > state change effects (e.g. "when X happens") but that is easily fixed. The > other differences are the explicit vs implicit specification of what > exactly happens, but I still don't see that as a major difference, and the > retroactive vs non-retroactive approach. At this point, I'm actually > thinking that retroactivity might be better there; I think it may be easier > to address time paradoxes explicitly. The pseudo-retroactive approach > attempts to work around this by preventing interference with itself, but > when you have complex interfering ratifications, I'm not entirely sure that > works. > > I should probably attempt to put that into an actual paradox attempt to > see if it works. > > -Alexis >
Thinking about the paradox point a bit more: the current rule has some paradox prevention that you draft didn't, IIRC, "If no such modification is possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification fails." But this requires deciding whether or not there is a paradox in the first place, which is problematic. -Alexis
