On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 18:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > there's at least one error in it. Thus, in order to block ratification, > > I picked the mistake in the report that was a) most clearly a mistake, > > and b) hardest for you to correct. > > But I don't need to correct that for this particular self-ratification to > function!
OK, I guess the argument here is about the semantics of "identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in it:" in rule 2201. Note that pointing out *any* error in a document prevents *the entire document* self-ratifying. I was under the impression that the "error" identified need not be an error, or indeed have any relationship to the document (i.e. it's just there for informing people about the reason behind the CoE), but I'm now not entirely sure that's correct. Let me make my CoE a bit more specific to address this point: CoE: the implicit claim made by the document in question (that was recently published by G., purporting to be the Secretary's Report) to contain a section of the Secretary's Report is invalid, because a Secretary's Report can only be published by the Secretary. (Note that the implicit claim is necessarily part of the document, or otherwise the document would not be self-ratifying in the first place.) Normally we don't bother with this level of specificity in Agora, but I agree that when someone's attempting a scam (and this is a scam-like action, even if it isn't necessarily intended to gain an advantage), it pays to be as precise as possible. -- ais523
