On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I CFJ {If the next Registrar's report did not list me as a player, and I
> subsequently ratified it using the mechanism specified in R2202
> (Ratification Without Objection), I would be able to go off hold.}Er. When did you go on hold to begin with? > The first CFJ deals with the retroactivity of ratification. If > ratification is truly retroactive, Rodlen would have held the office > since April 26th, and would qualify for the Ribbon. If it merely changes > the instantaneous gamestate to be retroactively correct, he would only > have held it since May 3rd, and would thus not qualify for the Ribbon. Can you explain the difference? I don't see how a non-retroactive interpretation is possible. If the report is to be retroactively correct, then Rodlen must have held the office at that point in time. Since it didn't change hands in the meantime, e must also have held it continuously since then. > The second deals with the paradoxability of ratification. Regardless of > the outcome of the first CFJ, the second is potentially paradoxical, > unless the ratification doesn't consider its own effect part of the > things to ratify. I'm thinking that once the gamestate is ratified, it's ratified. The fact that the new time-stream doesn't include an effective ratification of itself doesn't invalidate it. -root
