I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. You write: "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
This seems to run afoul of Rule 217: "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true." Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:12 PM Charles Walker <charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on > > 3726 a couple of times. > > Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back > into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of > argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to > have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate. > > > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way, > > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't > > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.) > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): > > - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend > otherwise via legal fiction? > - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point > in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the > publication of the ratified document and T is the time of > ratification. >
