Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3458
============================= CFJ 3458 ============================= The above-quoted message is a claim of error. ====================================================================== Caller: ais523 Judge: Sprocklem Judgement: FALSE ====================================================================== History: Called by ais523: 04 Feb 2016 assigned to Sprocklem: 09 Sep 2016 judged FALSE be Sprocklem 13 Oct 2016 ====================================================================== Caller's Arguments: We define a claim of error as a method of challenging a self-ratifying report, but we don't have any definition of what a claim of error actually /is/. The message seems to fit the English definition of the words in question. The rules additionally require an "explicit public challenge" to prevent self-ratification. It's unclear whether this is part of the definition of a claim of error, or whether something can be a claim of error but implicitly so that it doesn't prevent self-ratification, or whether clearly being a claim of error is explicit enough to count. (I suspect the message in question isn't explicit enough to count. I also, however, have no problems with it self-ratifying, assuming it's accurate.) ====================================================================== 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. ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: 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 possibilities: * 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. ======================================================================