On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > normally we just CFJ on > whether they worked and then let the Registrar's report ratify, but if > ratification is broken, that doesn't necessarily work, both due to the > possibility of the CFJ having been judged incorrectly (ratification and > to some extent rule 217 is how CFJs get their power!)
For the record, as I've stated to you on IRC, I have never thought this was true (and didn't know you did). I do believe that a CFJ outcome can be platonically wrong (whatever that means) and papered over via ratification - indeed, we concluded this was the case for my own registration attempt! - but I would call this unlikely and ancillary to the combination of rule 217 and game custom, not a primary mechanism for how CFJs get their power. Especially because (a) CFJs often set precedent for how actions should be interpreted moving forward, which is then used uncritically many times (meaning that ratification would just make the game limp along dysfunctionally with periodic resynchronization at reports) and (b) CFJs are a lot older than ratification, I believe that once a controversy is resolved, we should usually just trust the outcome and not worry about the possibility of the resolution being "wrong". > and due to the > possibility of the registration rules being different from what people > thought they were. They haven't changed recently, so as I previously stated, in my opinion my fix proposal is unambiguously sufficient.
