status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3525
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
============================== CFJ 3525 ==============================
Alexis does not have a White Ribbon, but ais523 does have a White
Ribbon.
========================================================================
Caller: ais523
Judge: Murphy
Judgement: FALSE
========================================================================
History:
Called by ais523: 10 Jun 2017
Assigned to Murphy: 10 Jun 2017
Judged FALSE by Murphy: 23 Jun 2017
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
In October 2016, neither ais523 nor Alexis had a White
Ribbon, but were both incorrectly shown as having such on the
Tailor's Report. It's already been ruled that Alexis' Ribbon
Ownership failed to ratify, as the report listing it was internally
inconsistent (listing Alexis twice under different nicknames, and
with a different holding for each name).
After that, there was no further Tailor's Report until May 2017. This
report listed Alexis' White Ribbon holdings as disputed, but had no
such mark for ais523 (because I remembered the controversy but forgot
the details; it had been several months earlier). This CFJ is
basically about what portion of a switch report (if any) counts as
self-ratifying if part of it is marked as disputed, or is internally
inconsistent.
Working out the current Ribbon holdings requires answering these
questions:
Did the May have a self-ratifying section at all?
If so, did that section include ais523's Ribbon Ownership but not
Alexis's Ribbon Ownership, or did it include both? Did it
additionally contain the statement of dispute?
If it included both, what happened when it self-ratified?
If the May report failed to change ais523's Ribbon Ownership upon
self-ratification, did the October report self-ratify ais523's Ribbon
Ownership?
========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Tailor's Report, October (excerpt):
{{{
ROGCBMUVIPLWKY
ais523 OG MUV P WKY
Alexis C W Y
scshunt RO CBMU P KY
}}}
[Note: "Alexis" and "scshunt" are two different nicknames for the
same
person.]
Tailor's Report, May (excerpt):
{{{
ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 OGC MUV P WKA
Alexis RO CBMUV P WKA (disputed, see CFJs 3463/3464)
}}}
Rule 2162/8 (excerpt):
{{{
3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified
otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
switch whose value is not its default value; a public
document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
are at their default value.
}}}
========================================================================
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
(Note: This disagrees with Gaelan's interpretation in CFJs 3463-64.)
It's in the best interest of the game to allow uncontroversial
claims to self-ratify and thus become correct, even if they
previously contained undiscovered errors, and even if those errors
are later discovered (because it's simpler to design equity patches
than retroactively recalculate gamestate). By extension, it's in the
best interests of the game to allow a mostly-correct set of claims
to mostly-self-ratify.
Rule 2162 (Switches), relevant portion:
3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified
otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
switch whose value is not its default value; a public
document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
are at their default value.
Per best-interests, this should not be interpreted as requiring an
exact specification of all such values; acknowledging a dispute is
sufficient, and such an explicit acknowledgment prevents the switch in
question from being included in "implies that other switches".
The effect of ratification is to minimally modify the gamestate so that
the ratified material is as true and accurate as possible.
* A self-contradictory statement can't be true or accurate, but in a
set of mostly independent claims, only the ones involved in self- or
mutual contradiction are affected. (A report of Shiny holdings where
the grand total didn't match the sum of parts would arguably be
completely ineffective if ratified, but that's beyond the scope of
this case.)
* A statement of "X's Y is disputed", even if true and accurate and
ratified, does not claim the exact value of X's Y, thus ratification
leaves that exact value unchanged.
The October 2016 Tailor's Report included rows for "Alexis" and
"scshunt" as if they were two different people (later found to be false)
with two different sets of ribbons. While we can explicitly create a
legal fiction of "A and B are two different people" (as with Maud and
Annabel several years ago), it's beyond the the reasonable scope of
ratification to do so implicitly. Thus those two rows were mutually
contradictory (even though that wasn't generally known until later),
thus self-ratification made no changes based on those two rows. But it
did include "ais523 has a White Ribbon".
The May 2017 Tailor's Report stated that Alexis's Ribbon Ownership
was disputed, thus self-ratification made no change based on that
portion. But, again, it did include "ais523 has a White Ribbon".
scshunt had a White Ribbon, then deregistered on 16 Sep 2015, then
Alexis allegedly registered on 14 Sep 2015 and gained a White Ribbon
on 16 Sep 2015. Ribbons are a person (not player) switch and are not
otherwise lost upon deregistration, and scshunt/Alexis has not won via
Ribbons since then (eir 3 wins by Renaissance, the old name for Raising
a Banner, all preceded this deregistration). Thus, e has a White Ribbon,
ais523 also has a White Ribbon, and the statement ("Alexis doesn't but
ais523 does") is FALSE.
========================================================================
