On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 20:37 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > Judge’s arguments: > For greater certainty, I hereby decree that any document(s) alleging to be > produced by the ADoP since the start of this scam, and not published > by the actual ADoP, aranea, is(are) null and void, and CANNOT > self-ratify. This expressly includes reports, as well as any other > game action restricted to the ADoP.
I'm not 100% sure you can do this like this. One of the main reasons that documents purporting to be reports self-ratify is that it naturally fixes things if we're mistaken as to who the officer is; it's entirely intentional that reports published by the wrong player are self-ratifying. As such, discovering that the wrong player published the report doesn't halt self-ratification in its own right. However, you can halt it pretty easily (as I saw G. did elsethread). The way I'd do it would be to reply "CoE: You are not the ADoP", because the authorship of the report is the mistake in it. There's also possibly an argument that you could rule that the case itself was a doubt on the report, but this isn't explicit in the /statement/ of the case. I'm far from certain whether you can make the case a doubt in the /judgement/; at least, I've never seen that before. -- ais523
