Ed Murphy wrote:
> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes,
> according to some plausible interpretation of the rules, that
> in doing so e is telling the truth.
I think "according to some plausible interpretation of the rules" is
not helpful here, and will just be grounds for more CFJs. Please be
clearer on what you want to require the person to have:
0. actual belief that the statement is true
1. a plausible interpretation of the rules that would make the
statement true
2. actual belief in a plausible interpretation as in 1
3. both 0 and 1
4. both 0 and 2
Also consider how much looser "plausible" is than "reasonable", and
whether the interpretation must be in the person's mind at the time
of making the statement. Real-life law has the concept of "reasonable
belief", which is somewhat clearer and might be worth importing wholesale.
> a) A public statement that one performs an action is true
> if and only if the attempt is successful.
You're still overcomplicating this bit, inviting dodgy interpretations,
by bringing in emergent concepts that don't belong here. What you need
to explicate is how an action statement is evaluated for truthfulness,
and it's best written in such terms. How about:
A statement that someone is thereby performing an action is
false if the described action is not thereby performed.
-zefram
