Index ← 3521 CFJ 3522 3523 → text
==============================  CFJ 3522 ===============================

      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.


Caller:                       V.J. Rada

Judge:                        Murphy
Judgement:                    FALSE



Called by V.J. Rada:          09 Jun 2017
Assigned to Murphy:           09 Jun 2017
Judged FALSE by Murphy:       10 Jun 2017


Caller's Arguments:

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

In either case, this case should be judged FALSE, and marking a fact
"Disputed" in a ratified statement should be judged to have legal


Caller's 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


Judge's Arguments:

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 ", and this change is legally
significant and effective in preventing the self-ratification of that
report from including "X is Y" in its scope.