On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 05:36, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > Proposal: Self-ratifying statements (AI=3) > > [Create a mechanism for a public message to be defined as self-ratifying a > statement that's not in the message. > > Currently, Rule 2034 does this in a strange implicit way, by saying that the > message "constitutes self-ratifying claims that" such-and-such. I'd call it > dubious, but according to CFJ 3618 as recorded in a FLR annotation (I can't > find the original judgement), it does work, even if the message in question > *explicitly disclaims* the such-and-such. Still, it's better to organize > things in a way that avoids counterfactual assumptions. > > Convert two rules to use the new mechanism: Rule 2034, and Rule 107, which > previously vaguely mentioned an error being "correctly identified within one > week". The new wording also requires clarity, as I also proposed separately > (if both proposal pass, this overwrites the wording from the other).] > > Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing: > > When a public document is ratified > > with: > > When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified
How do self-ratifying actions interact with the "if the document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the time the document was true" part? I guess they generally wouldn't trigger it, and we'll think of that part as being intended only for old-style ratification.But I wonder if a new reader without that context would be confused by that part, if they first read R2034 and then read this rule to understand what a self-ratifying attestation is. -- - Falsifian
