==============================  CFJ 1841  ==============================

    It is possible for a game action to take effect retroactively.


Caller:                                 WALRUS

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by WALRUS:                       20 Dec 2007 01:51:48 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         20 Dec 2007 03:45:25 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      20 Dec 2007 05:41:07 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Arguments against:
The rules are silent on this issue. By rule 217/6, game custom, common sense,
and the best interests of the game augment the rules where the rule text is
Common sense dictates that no action can take effect before it occurs.
Game custom dictates that actions take effect at the time of announcement.
The best interests of the game dictate that creating such a radically
changeable game-state is horrid, and trashes the game.

I note that, if these are not judged TRUE, Fookiemyartug is not and never has
been a player, a person, or even a contract.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I would argue that both are possible by means of a
rule, proposal, or even ratification; but like most other things, a
contract cannot make it so by saying so.

This rule is currently in effect in B Nomic:

  Rule 3-1: The Temporal Prime Directive

  No rule or game action may require or force any retroactive changes to
  the game state. It is, however, permissible, to create rules or
  perform otherwise-legal game actions that simulate retroactive changes
  to the game state.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

It is possible for a Proposal to make an action take effect retroactively,
so there is a possible mechanism, which requires me to judge TRUE.  However,
every action performed by sending a message (public or private) is performed
as per R478.  "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the
time date-stamped on that message."  So the Rules are not silent on the issue.
For a message-base action  to be permitted to be retroactive, it must be
wholly governed by rules with higher precedence than this (power-3, low rule
number) rule.  Contracts do not qualify.  Finally, for actions which are not
performed by sending a message (I can't think of any, but still...), it is
in the best interests of the game to have them be similarly governed by the
guidelines of this rule.

Still, by the "proposal" method alone, I judge TRUE.