First, before I start, I'd like to say: Sorry about the delay.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3458
> ============================= CFJ 3458 =============================
> The above-quoted message is a claim of error.
> Caller's Evidence:
> [Arbitor note: this is the "above quoted message"]
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 16:55 -0500, Henri Bouchard wrote:
>> I intend to deputise for Registrar in two days. Ignore the Registrar's
>> Report I just published. It is invalid because the office is filled.
The caller's arguments, available in the link above, also discuss how
this effects the documents self-ratification, which requires an
"explicit public challenge" and, in doing so, present a couple of
* The message is not a claim of error;
* The message is a CoE, but not an explicit public challenge;
* the message is a CoE, and is an explicit public challenge.
The second case implies that it is possible to implicitly make a claim
of error, in a manner that doesn't challenge self-ratification. The Rule
2201 reads "A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the
following methods...", which to my reading implies that each of the
following methods (including a claim of error), is always an explicit
public challenge. Additionally, while the action in question is pretty
harmless, the ability for an report to self-ratify after the publishing
has been shown to be an error, seems uncomfortable, if not scammable.
As far as the first case goes, insofar as I can remember, claims of
error have always been explicit. This has the advantage of making claims
of error easy to recognise, so the publisher can republish as
appropriate. In practice the only consequence of this option is that a
probably-correct ruleset was unexpectedly ratified (but was later
replaced anyways). In the future, people will just continue to be
explicit about what is a point of error.
On the other hand, I think the phrasing of the message in question makes
it pretty clear that the publishing of the document was in error and the
document should not be taken as fact. The downside to this third option
is that a claim of error could become more easier to miss.
Ultimately, I think that the (past) inconvenience of the one time
ratification of a probably-correct ruleset is dwarfed by the ease of
detectability of requiring more explicit CoEs.