i sent this to the wrong place
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM, V.J Rada wrote:
> I additionally bar ais523 from judgement of this case.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:45 PM, 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
>> Evidence
>> Rule 1551, Ratification, reads in relevant part
>> [When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at
>> the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been
>> minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as
>> possible.]
>> The preamble of the Tailor's report on June 6 reads
>> [Before the main body of the report, a summary of what I believe to have
>>
>> happened with respect to Alexis: eir own White Ribbon was never legally
>> given, and nor was the White Ribbon e gave me; but I forgot at the time
>> of the last report that my own White Ribbon holding was disputed, and
>> thus marked only Alexis' as such. The report itself was not CoEd, and
>> thus self-ratified a week later. As far as I can tell, what therefore
>> happened was that both me and Alexis gained a White Ribbon at the time
>> of ratification (being the minimum change to the gamestate required to
>> give all the Ribbon Ownership switches the value the report stated they
>> held; note that the statement that Alexis' switch had a disputed value
>> is not in its own right self-ratifying, although being a true
>> statement, it wouldn't matter if it were; ratifying a true statement
>> has no effect).
>>
>> This seems something like a bug that should perhaps be fixed, as
>> reporting on disputes is currently impossible to do "correctly" without
>> CoEing your own report and resolving the CoE with a reference to the
>> CFJ in question, something that I hadn't realised would be required.
>> The well-known "disputed" mark in reports, has, as far as I can tell,
>>
>> no legal effect.
>>
>>
>> If someone believes that I've misinterpreted the law here, I'd
>> recommend calling a CFJ. Alternatively, if someone feels that I've
>> interpreted it correctly but that the situation is nonetheless unfair,
>> the correct solution probably involves a proposal. (Perhaps we should
>> create some sort of rules-wide equity system. I know G. would probably
>> be a fan of that.)]
>>
>> Argument
>> I disagree with the statement that the disputed mark has no legal effect,
>> and therefore, as suggested by the Tailor himself, call a CFJ. Game
>> practice clearly shows (as the Tailor admits by calling it "well-known")
>> that marking an aspect of a report "disputed" is often used; I believe that
>> the intent of this use is to mark a fact in a report as possibly incorrect,
>> and therefore its very inclusion in the report should not lead to its
>> finality. I believe that the best judgement would be that the use of the
>> disputed mark implies that the previously listed words in the report are
>> arguably factually incorrect, and thus ratification of the report would
>> continue that possibility instead of precluding it. Common sense affirms
>> this course of action. As the Tailor notes, it seems silly to make it
>> impossible for the very writer of a report to cast aspersions its contents
>> except by CoE. In addition, the possible unfairness of this factual
>> situation itself leads to this conclusion. A person who wished to make a
>> CoE may have stopped due to the presence of the disputed mark, only to be
>> caught off card by this new legal opinion.
>>
>> Alternatively, "internally inconsistent" reports or statements cannot be
>> ratified. Stating a fact in the same way as other facts and then
>> contradicting that fact with the disputed mark is internally inconsistent.
>>
>> In either case, this case should be judged FALSE, and marking a fact
>> "Disputed" in a ratified statement should be judged to have legal effect.
>>
>>
>
