status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3769
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3769 ===============================
When the action of ratification of a public document is performed,
Rule 1551 is the agent that performs certain changes to the
gamestate.
==========================================================================
Caller: Jason Cobb
Judge: twg
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 04 Aug 2019 01:58:42
Assigned to twg: 10 Aug 2019 11:58:30
Judged TRUE by twg: 13 Aug 2019 15:58:12
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Excerpt from Rule 1551 ("Ratification"):
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
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;
Excerpt from Rule 2202 ("Ratification Without Objection"):
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
specifying its scope.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's Arguments:
The Rules do not define what the action of ratifying a public document
actually _is_, although they do provide methods by which the action of
ratifying a public document can be performed. Instead of defining what
the action is, Rule 1551 states that whenever a public document happens
to be ratified (by some method), "the gamestate is modified [in a
certain way]". That is, the changes to the gamestate are a side-effect
of the ratification and not part of the performance of the action of
ratifying a public document.
I therefore argue that whatever entity happens to be performing the
ratification is not necessarily the same as the entity modifying the
gamestate.
To make matters worse, this part of Rule 1551 is written in the passive
voice, so it does not provide a clear agent. Given that Rule 1551 is the
only Rule that describes this modification, and does not provide any
other way for another entity to be the agent that performs the changes
to the gamestate (because the changes are only a side-effect of the
ratification), the only entity that could possibly be the agent here is
Rule 1551 itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge twg's Arguments:
I find no fault with the caller's arguments, though I admit I can't see why
e cares one way or the other about the matter. I judge this CFJ TRUE.
==========================================================================
