On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 18:53 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 13:45 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > > ========Call for Judgement========
> > > The Tailor's recent statement in the preamble of his June 6
> > > report that "the well-known "disputed" mark in reports has... no
> > > legal effect." was legally correct
> >
> > This is CFJ 3522. I assign it to Murphy.
>
> I agree with the caller. Reporting something as disputed implicitly
> changes what is being reported, from "X is Y" to "X is probably Y but
> may instead be Z because <reasons>", and this change is legally
> significant and effective in preventing the self-ratification of that
> report from including "X is Y" in its scope.
>
> FALSE.
Hmm, it looks like this result is insufficient to clear up what
actually happens (and also fails to block self-ratification as it isn't
explicit enough).
CFJ, explicitly challenging the most recent purported Tailor's Report:
Alexis does not have a White Ribbon, but ais523 does have a White
Ribbon.
Evidence:
Tailor's Report, October (excerpt):
{{{
ROGCBMUVIPLWKY
ais523 OG MUV P WKY
Alexis C W Y
scshunt RO CBMU P KY
}}}
[Note: "Alexis" and "scshunt" are two different nicknames for the same
person.]
Tailor's Report, May (excerpt):
{{{
ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 OGC MUV P WKA
Alexis RO CBMUV P WKA (disputed, see CFJs 3463/3464)
}}}
Rule 2162/8 (excerpt):
{{{
3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified
otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
switch whose value is not its default value; a public
document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
are at their default value.
}}}
Arguments: In October 2016, neither ais523 nor Alexis had a White
Ribbon, but were both incorrectly shown as having such on the Tailor's
Report. It's already been ruled that Alexis' Ribbon Ownership failed to
ratify, as the report listing it was internally inconsistent (listing
Alexis twice under different nicknames, and with a different holding
for each name).
After that, there was no further Tailor's Report until May 2017. This
report listed Alexis' White Ribbon holdings as disputed, but had no
such mark for ais523 (because I remembered the controversy but forgot
the details; it had been several months earlier). This CFJ is basically
about what portion of a switch report (if any) counts as self-ratifying
if part of it is marked as disputed, or is internally inconsistent.
Working out the current Ribbon holdings requires answering these
questions:
Did the May have a self-ratifying section at all?
If so, did that section include ais523's Ribbon Ownership but not
Alexis's Ribbon Ownership, or did it include both? Did it additionally
contain the statement of dispute?
If it included both, what happened when it self-ratified?
If the May report failed to change ais523's Ribbon Ownership upon self-
ratification, did the October report self-ratify ais523's Ribbon
Ownership?
--
ais523
