On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, comex wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think we're in agreement, actually, (comex, you and myself) just the >> victim of my imperfectly trying to parse a not-quite-perfectly written >> CFJ statement. > > Personally, I don't think wearing a hat is part of the gamestate in > any way whatsoever; therefore it cannot be ratified, even for an > instant. Hence you could ratify whether someone got a French Flag, > but not whether they were actually wearing the hat. Rule 1551 makes > it clear, I think, that ratification cannot even attempt to change the > past:
*sigh* the whole point is that your cfj wasn't about wearing a hat in the specific, but about hypothetical properties "such as... wearing a hat, the same as another person, etc. ". Given such a list I had what you found in common in that list, and given that you wrote it as general properties with a list of examples, treat it as a question of what the rules *could generally* allow to be ratified given the current ratification rules, rather than what specific records are currently tracked. I almost said "This is UNDETERMINED because the examples you give in this hypothetical don't have enough in common to extrapolate to general properties" but I made a try, maybe I wish I hadn't now. But moving on, other than verification issues, there's *no reason* we couldn't pass a rule that says "comex is the recordkeepor for whether someone was actually, physically wearing a hat on each day and will record the days on which day each person wore a hat" thus making it ratifiable as a past condition. -Goethe
