create new rule,
name is “Glorious”.
It shall be:

the dynastic rules,
only three words,
per line have.

three is good
three is safe
three is all.

such is poetry.
this is beauty.
welcome to dynasty.

This is a bit of a follow-up to that CfJ.

What is “legality” or “validity” here in BlogNomic?

Aside from acting and being intentionally dishonest:
- does the legality/formal validity of things depend entirely on what we perceive to be legal
or…
- does our perception simply digs down to a certain degree to the ideal truth, and whatever is the deepest that the public is aware of, is what is actually legal, and what hasn’t been, was bogus all along.

To use the pseudoauction case:

- Has the gamestate legitimately changed because we played along the pseudoactions, and now it needs to be changed again because we’ve found them to be illegal.
or
- We have been short-sighted this entire time and the (true) gamestate hasn’t actually changed, we’ve just made a bunch of bogus actions and played silly.

I’m wondering because not only is it super interesting to me personally, it would really affect how CfJs are supposed to be written in regard to correcting stuff, which involves these past and-then-found-to-be-false interpretations (i.e. do they just spawn bogus actions and no actual formal action needs to be taken to alter the formal state because no changes actually happened, or they’ve been legitimate, and need to be actually formally reverted to conform to the new, “truer” view?).