Index ← 3787 CFJ 3788 3789 → text
===============================  CFJ 3788  ===============================

      If the two documents quoted above were ratified, the first one
      would have the effect of modifying the historical record twice and
      the publicity switches of the relevant fora twice, in the manner
      stated as interpretation a above.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        Aris
Barred:                        Falsifian

Judge:                         Alexis

==========================================================================

History:

Called by Aris:                                   01 Jan 2020 07:02:48
Assigned to Alexis:                               12 Jan 2020 20:07:17
Alexis recused:                                   19 Jan 2020 02:49:10

==========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 18:59, Aris wrote:
>
> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited
> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message):
> ~~~
> Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019
>
> At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and
> agora-business became discussion fora.
> ~~~
>
> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited
> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message):
> ~~~
> Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019
>
> At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and
> agora-business became public fora.
> ~~~
>
> I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying the
> other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect,
> but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages
> failed to be public under CFJ 1905.


Caller's Arguments:

The relevant paragraph of rule 1551:
"When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified, rules to
the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would 
be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had 
been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate 
as possible; however, if the document explicitly specifies a different 
past time as being the time the document was true, the specified time is 
used to determine the minimal modifications. Such a modification cannot 
add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot 
include rule changes unless the ratified document explicitly and 
unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting properties of 
the rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or multiple 
substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally 
appropriate, the ratification fails."

I don’t think any reasonable reader would say that the minimal change
necessary to make a document true involves inserting a change cancelling
out any changes made by the document. That’s simply not what minimal 
change means in natural language. Also, if there is any interpretation in 
which this view is correct, the best interests of the game and common 
sense mandate that it be selected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by Falsifian:

Repeating the two possibly gamestate changes I mentioned earlier, for 
context:

a) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become
discussion fora. Flip both publicity switches to Discussion.

b) Insert four events into the historical record: a-o and a-b became
discussion fora, then immediately after, became Public fora again.

First, I agree that (b) probably isn't the (unique) minimal change,
but I do suspect it triggers this clause from R1551 "If ... multiple
substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
appropriate, the ratification fails.".

Second, here's an even smaller change that could be made:

(c) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become
discussion fora. Make no other changes (so their publicity switches
are still Public).

This introduces an inconsistency between the sequence of historical
events and the current value of switches, but I don't see why that
would rule it out. R1551 says the change "cannot add inconsistencies
between the gamestate and the rules", but the rules are silent on the
question of whether the current value of a switch should be consistent
with the sequence of past changes to that value.

Now you may say: "But come on! Even if the rules don't rule that out,
common sense tells us that this gamestate makes no sense and must be
ruled out." But consider the common-place effect of ratifying an
officer's report containing an incorrect value for a switch: in that
case, I think we all casually assume that the resulting minimal change
to the gamestate is that the switch is flipped to the reported,
incorrect value, even though that value is inconsistent with the
history of changes to that switch. The only difference here is that
it's the other way around: rather than the switch being flipped
without a change to its history, the history is changed without a
change to the value of the switch.

==========================================================================