On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 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:
Let me try to answer the CFJ that I wish I'd been handed, is this close to what you intended by your statement? Statement: If tracked by a recordkeepor, an current true condition that exists outside the rules can be ratified to be untrue. Answer: FALSE Reason: Ratification states that for legal purposes, a condition asserted in a ratified report is to be treated as being TRUE at the instant of the report. If the condition is wholly within-game (e.g. doesn't exist in the absence of it being defined by Agora), then ratification fixes its condition at that instant, and thereafter it changes from that (previously untrue) condition only as the rules allow, and if not changed by specific Rules-mechanisms, it remains in its ratified state. However, if the condition exists outside the gamestate, and is merely tracked but not wholly created within the game, an untrue fact of that condition *could* be ratified as being legally true at the *past* instant of the ratified document, but immediately thereafter it's "real" outside-the-game state in a sense "reasserts" itself, in other words, the truth of its condition, that is not wholly created by the ruleset, is the "mechanism" by which the false ratified state reverts (in a legal sense) back to the true state, so the "current" state cannot be ratified. [It may be possible to replace "within" and "without" the rules with "regulated" and "unregulated" but that gets into another set of definitions]. -Goethe
