On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I agree that legislative clarification would help here, strongly. There's > an interesting history to "gamestate" in reset proposals along with "deem" > and other terms of legal fiction that have been used until strongly > questioned and then discredited due to a weakness in the boundaries of > the term.
CFJs are judged based on the state of the game at a certain point in time, which is no different than, say, the registration rule, which examines whether the person was ever registered in the last thirty days. But it seems to me that if a rule says it's looking at what the game was like in the past, it should examine what the game *actually was like then*; without an explicit rule to the contrary, saying "when a rule purports to examine the past state of the game, it actually refers to what's stored in this gamestate variable", the rules should mean what they say.
