Goethe wrote: > pre-judicial reform and pre-MMI, the SHOULD has been implied in > judgement for a long time. Why did Murphy's game-winning paradox > work then?
Because there was a reasonably equal amount of evidence in favor of each hypothetical gamestate. Also, the pre-reform implication was arguably "SHALL, until/unless overturned on appeal or via legislation; Agorans are sufficiently reasonable to overturn bad judgements on appeal". Note that reform also introduced time limits on appeal, which would have altered this implication (particularly the second half) if it hadn't explicitly stated SHOULD at the same time.
