RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: RulRes 2

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/1/02 at 8:11 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> to change the gamestate as if certain acts in the past
>> were legal is to declare those acts to be legal.
>>
>No. It's to change the present to what it would be if they had been legal.
>Granted, from the point of view of the rules it will look the same as if
>the past were different from how it actually was, but that's not the same
>thing (and even then, because this proosal is itself part of the past, it
>only superficially looks like the past was different - if you look closer,
>the past is consistent). There's no reason why a proosal can't arbitrarily
>change the current gamestate to anything it likes.
>
>uin.

The gamestate is the sum of the initial ruleset and all actions taken since then.  This is inescapable, because of, among other things, the fact that a CFJ is explicitly a remedy for illegal events and actions.  The legitimacy of a CFJ that attempts to remedy a given event or action is dependent upon said events or actions actually existing and falling within the criteria of being addressable by a CFJ.  Therefore the legitimacy of a potential CFJ is part of the gamestate.

To change the gamestate to be as if certain events or actions were legal is to change the legitimacy of potential CFJs.  Since the legitimacy of those CFJs relies upon the state of the past, to change the legitimacy of those CFJs is to alter the past.

						Glotmorf