Index ← 3642 CFJ 3643 3644 → text
===============================  CFJ 3643  ===============================

      In the above-quoted message, Corona published a self-ratifying


Caller:                        ais523

Judge:                         V.J. Rada
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by ais523:                                 18 Jun 2018 16:19:23
Assigned to Gaelan:                               24 Jun 2018 21:48:55
Gaelan recused:                                   23 Jul 2018 00:06:24
Assigned to V.J. Rada:                            23 Jul 2018 00:06:24
Judged TRUE by V.J. Rada:                         23 Jul 2018 04:22:11


Caller's Arguments:

Precedent says that a disclaimer stating that the content of
a message is false is enough to prevent it taking actions by
announcement. Is the same true of self-ratifying reports?

See CFJs 1971 (particularly relevant), 2069, 2830, 3000 for more
information. (Information about these CFJs is available at


Caller's Evidence:

On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 18:01 +0200, Corona wrote:
> This report is intentionally false, with the sole deviation from
> reality being re-ratifying the items generated
> in facilities on June 4, which have been accidentaly ratified out of
> existence by the last report.


Judge's Arguments:

A report was published with a disclaimer stating that a specific
information contained in it is false. Did the disclaimer invalidate
the report? The rule that has so far applied is that a disclaimer that
states information contained in a message may be false invalidates any
actions in that message depending on the truth or falsity of any
information, but not actions (including calling CFJs) that make no
statement as to the truth or falsity of anything.

This comes from CFJ 1971. In this CFJ, ais523 attached to a message
calling that selfsame CFJ, a disclaimer stating (among other things)
that "Any statements in the above message are not necessarily true"
but that "any game actions I take in the above message still have an
effect". G. submitted the argument that a disclaimer such as the one
above could invalidate game actions which depend on truth or falsity.
The judge adopted that argument in a one-sentence judgement. This
precedent has been affirmed and reaffirmed as recently as CFJ 3000.
The application of this precedent is clear: any game action that is
"truth-based", in that it explicitly or implicitly asserts the truth
of information not obvious, is invalid with a disclaimer (eg. Ribbons
are invalid because they implicitly certify that the recipient is
eligible. CFJs are valid because all they assert is that the caller is
a person).

However this is not relevant here. Self-ratification does not involve
any actions but is simply an automatic method for making documents
true. Documents are portions of public messages. The document at issue
here is "a list of all instances of that class [of assets] and their
owners" (Rule 2166). Some rules make a portion of a message that
purports to give certain information self-ratifying, under which the
disclaimer's inclusion would be ambiguous. But the disclaimer is
unambiguously not part of a "list".

In sum, the CFJ 1971 line of precedents forbids truth-based actions
where a disclaimer is present. Disclaimer's don't stop someone from
publishing merely words which constitute a document. And at least in
this case, the disclaimer isn't part of the self-ratifying document.

Corona the Treasuror published a self-ratifying report. CFJ 3646 is TRUE.