On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > This argument is mostly correct, and I think coppro erred in this. It > doesn't mean you're innocent, though. You're making statements about > ratification which are only correct under the old, broken version of the > ratification rule; and with multiple fix proposals pending, including > one you authored, making a general statement about the future, one which > relies on a particular current wording of the rule to still hold if a > particular statement is ever ratified in the future, is just logically > false.
No; I think that if the statement is ratified under a future rule, it might become false, but is presently neither true nor false. Which is different from what I claimed when I intended to ratify the document, because I changed my mind; and I guess you could say that my belief at that time was unreasonable. However, there is at least one reasonable interpretation under which the document is not incorrect, which is all that's necessary for NOT GUILTY... ... this all might sound cavalier toward the truth, but again, outside of this case, the point is moot. > Making incorrect statements is one issue. Attempting to ratify them is > another. I don't think they're the same crime, and indeed, you could be > punished for both. Pretty damn similar: if I hadn't intended to ratify the document, publishing it and claiming it was true wouldn't be a R2215 violation even if the document were false because it wouldn't be game-relevant.
