Gratutity. I would rule the following to each of these questions. 1: The May report had a self-ratifying section, which is every player not marked with an exclamation mark next to their (eir?) ribbon holdings. Murphy's judgement did not rule the document internally inconsistent. 2: As Alexis's ribbon ownership had a disputed mark next to it, it doesn't self-ratify. " effective in preventing the self-ratification of that > report from including "X is Y" in its scope." is not ambiguous in holding that. ais523's Ribbon Ownership did self ratify even if it was incorrect, because ais himself didn't mark it as disputed. 3: Not necessary to answer, but I would argue that 1)the gamestate was changed in the minimal way to make ais have a White Ribbon and 2) the gamestate was modified in the minimal way to have Alexis's Ribbon be in dispute. 4: Not necessary but isn't it longstanding that a report that is inconsistent fails to ratify in its entirety, unless the preamble conflicts with the body? The October report could do nothing.
The statement is TRUE
