==============================  CFJ 3212  ==============================

    It is illegal for a player to announce intent to use Ratification
    Without Objection to ratify a document whose contents are identical
    to this sentence, without also specifying a reason for ratifying it.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Bucky

Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              FALSE


Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  FKA441344
Judgement:                              UNDECIDABLE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Bucky:                        15 May 2012 02:10:43 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                26 May 2012 01:58:12 GMT
Judged FALSE by Machiavelli:            26 May 2012 04:51:33 GMT
Reconsideration requested by BuckyBot:  27 May 2012 17:47:23 GMT
Reconsideration requested by omd:       27 May 2012 22:32:41 GMT
Reconsideration requested by scshunt:   27 May 2012 22:35:24 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                27 May 2012 22:35:24 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    28 May 2012 02:16:33 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        03 Jun 2012 17:22:48 GMT
omd recused:                            19 Jun 2012 02:07:22 GMT
Assigned to FKA441344:                  19 Jun 2012 02:08:50 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by FKA441344:        19 Jun 2012 19:27:49 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

If the statement were false, the announcement would clearly be Endorsing
Forgery, since several minor changes make it correct ("it is legal for..."
"...while also specifying...").  However, ratifying the statement also implies
that the statement was factually incorrect at the time it was made, making it
clearly illegal after the fact and thus correct (and legal).  The result is a
contradiction.

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2202/4 (Power=3)
Ratification Without Objection

      Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
      specifying its scope. If that document is an official report or
      a substantial portion thereof, until such a time as that report
      or portion is again ratified, the date and scope of the
      ratification become a part of the report.

      Ratification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal,
      amendment, enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the
      contrary notwithstanding.

      A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use
      Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to
      ratification) incorrect document when a corrected document could
      be produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of
      the document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and
      plainly described in the announcement of intent.  Such
      ratification or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8
      Crime of Endorsing Forgery.

========================================================================

Judge Machiavelli's Arguments:

Suppose that this statement is true in all cases. Then it is
impossible for a player to attempt to ratify it without knowing that
it is false in all cases. This is clearly wrong, however; not everyone
knows that this statement is false in all cases.

Suppose that this statement is false in all cases. Then it is
impossible for a player to attempt to ratify it *while* knowing that
it is false in all cases. It is, however, possible for a player to
attempt to ratify it. We can only conclude that it is impossible to
know that this statement is false in all cases.

Suppose that this statement is true in some cases but false in others.
Then it is possible for a player to attempt to ratify it with or
without knowing that it is false in all cases. This means, however,
that it is possible to know that it is false in all cases, which, in
turn, implies that it is false in all cases. This is a contradiction.

So the only consistent possibility is the following: this statement is
false in all cases, but it is impossible to know this fact. I believe
this conclusion is probably correct; after all, I still have doubts
about it.

========================================================================

Request for reconsideration by <function player at 0xb6d4d5dc>:

I intend with 2 support to file a Motion to Reconsider this judgment.  It sets
a disturbing precedent that believing there is a very small probability that a
statement is true is enough to circumvent a knowingly-incorrect clause.  The
argument could be extended to absurd conclusions - is it legal to intend to
ratify any arbitrary statement because there is a nonzero probability that the
ruleset has been modified to make the statement correct without the ratifier
knowing about it?

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:

I sort of like my judgement, but like I said, I do have my doubts. Now
I think I prefer C. S. Lewis's resolution to the liar paradox—namely,
that the statement "This statement is false" simply doesn't mean
anything. As such, UNDETERMINED would be an appropriate judgement.
Therefore, I recuse myself from CFJ 3212.

========================================================================

Judge FKA441344's Arguments:

If the statement is true then it is false; if it is false it is true.
TRUE and FALSE are both inappropriate. Several of the cases judged
UNDECIDABLE are similar. I judge CFJ 3212 UNDECIDABLE.

========================================================================