On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 16:30, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:17 +0000, James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > This is a counter-proto to Alexis's "Ratification by Legal Fiction", > > in the sense that I think it also fixes the problem of ratification > > failing due to minimal gamestate changes being ambiguous. It is a > > more radical change and makes the use of ratification less concise, > > but in my opinion the reward is that it greatly increases simplicity > > and certainty in what the effect of ratification actually is. > > A problem that the current rules have, and that I don't think this > fixes: what happens if a ratification simulates a change to the past > gamestate that would prevent the ratification itself from having > occured, or from causing it to do something different? > > I'm not sure what the correct answer to this is, but I think it's a > question worth thinking about.
If I understand Alexis's proto right, it deals with that by simply declaring that if establishing a legal fiction would prevent that same legal fiction from being established, it's not established. So perhaps add something to Rule 1551 like "If a ratifying a retroactive event would prevent that ratification from occurring, the ratification does not occur in the first place."? I suspect there will still be ways to get paradoxes. May be an inevitable consequence of having such a powerful tool available. - Falsifian
