On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, omd wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > What's really missing? It seems pretty evident to me that a power-3.1 > > rule that says, "after this ratifies, we treat everything going forward > > as if this history was true" is pretty straightforward and overrules > > everything. > > But that's not what it says. If it said that, there would be no > issue, but I contest the reduction from "the gamestate is modified to > what it would be if [it were true]" to "treat everything going forward > as if it were true".
Ok, considered it a bit. I really think that in a real, practical sense, there's no difference. When we set a "past history" to being the modified gamestate, we're treating that going forward, as we can't (in a practical sense) return to the past. So call it a decision to judge along pragmatic, lawyer lines so that modifying the gamestate means saying "if it comes up in the future, X was true at time Y" rather than an attempt to assert that "X was platonically true at time Y". -G.
