Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I thought we fixed this

G. wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012, omd wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM, John Smith<spambait3 <at> yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>> I CfJ on the statement "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."
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Ratifying something does not presume it's incorrect and does not
>> change the legality of any previous actions, so the statement is
>> equivalent to "this statement is incorrect" which, er, ... is eligible
>> for paradox anyway, because Rule 2319, the fix for your original win,
>> was repealed in a mass repeal last year.
>
> If the statement is required to be in the CFJ, doesn't it "arise from
> the case itself"?  The "not arising from the case itself" clause was
> specifically put in to block "this statement is false" wins.
>
> Actually, isn't Rule 2358 contradictory in that any hypothetical
> situation mentioned arises from the case itself, because the case is
> what raises them?

I interpret Rule 2358 as allowing hypothetical situations that could
exist independently of the case.

The other fix for this situation (Rule 1551/14: "... ratification ...
does not ... change the legality of any attempted action") was amended
away last year.