On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Two miss-sends in a row. Sorry. That's embarrassing.
>
> There's one way it could be, although it seems unlikely and is going
> to be dismissed as too fuzzy. It has to do with how wrong something has
> to be to not be a report. One could argue that there is a fundamental
> difference between something that is clearly factually incorrect and
> something that's ambiguous, and that in the latter case the officer has
> discretion. You'd probably be arguing that the purpose of self-ratification
> is to clear up ambiguity. It seems more likely that it's there to fix
> things people missed, to stop the gamestate from becoming uncorrectably
> confused. For instance so that people wouldn't complain about minor date
> shifts that no one noticed for multiple months.
> -Aris
Possible. If it had been marked in the report as ambiguous, I'd agree with
this. But remember that if you want an ambiguous report to ratify, you'd
better be explicit about it (see the SHALL NOT in R2022, though that doesn't
apply to self-ratification).
