On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 15:47 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 11/8/23 15:40, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote: > > This is a self-ratifying document. (Please do not object to this report > > outright, instead, submit a CoE so I may make the appropriate correction > > upon the next report). > > I swear, to the best of my ability, that the following is true and correct, > > under penalty of no faking: > > > > The following are players and the hats they are wearing: > > Player Hat > > ------------------- ---------- > > Gaelan is wearing a giant question mark as a hat. > > Murphy is wearing history itself as a hat. > > Janet is wearing a pointy purple witch hat. > > cuddlybanana is wearing a banana hat. > > ais523 is wearing THE SUPER ULTIMATE WINNER'S HAT. > > snail is wearing the helix fossil as a hat. > > juan is wearing the entrance gates of Agora as a hat. > > Aris is wearing a hat. > > 4st is wearing the number 4 as a hat. > > Yachay Wayllukuq is wearing a regular old ghost as a hat. > > blob is wearing emself as a hat. > > Anneke-Constantine is wearing the movie Constantine as a hat. > > kiako is wearing a different hat. > > Kate is wearing Beatrice (bird form) as a hat. > > Zipzap is wearing a zipper as a hat. > > nix is wearing anarchy as a hat. > > omd is wearing this report as a hat. > > innalienableWright is wearing as a hat. > > beokirby is wearing the same hat. > > I affirm, under penalty of no faking, that I am not wearing a hat, nor > was I at the time of the above-quoted message. > > I note each of the following infractions, in order:
These notings are all with respect to rule 2471, so it's worth taking a look at what is actually required to violate the rule: the statements have to be either intended to mislead or labeled as being under penalty of no faking (the latter is true for all these statements), and the author has to know (or should have known) that the statement is false, or believe the statement to be false. Some of these statements are obviously false; for these statements, 4st should have known that the statement were false, and thus making it is a violation. Some of these statements are, from 4st's point of view, likely but not certain to be false. Due to a bug in rule 2471, these are infractions only if 4st believed the statement to be false (it is not sufficient for 4st to not believe the statement to be true), and if the statement is in fact actually false. It seems quite plausible that 4st made the statements not knowing or caring whether they were true or not, as opposed to actually believing them to be false, in which case there is no infraction. As such, many of these come down to the definition of "believe" – in particular, is it possible to believe something if you've never thought about whether it's true or not? I checked a few dictionaries, and many of them said that "believe" has a connotation of not being absolutely certain; as such, when making a wild stab in the dark as to an unlikely statement about someone else, it seems semantically as though the person making the statement believes it to be false, even if they aren't sure. This means that: - for statements that are physically impossible or almost so, an infraction was committed (making a statement under penalty of No Faking that the author should have known was false); - for statements that are not physically impossible, but unlikely, an infraction was committed (making a statement under penalty of No Faking that the author believed was false), unless the statement was actually true; - for statements that are plausible, no infraction was committed because the author probably did not believe the statement to be false (even though e did not believe it to be true). It's also worth thinking about the punishments here. As far as I can tell, each statement is a separate infraction, meaning that even a minimum punishment is likely to end up very large – disproportionate to the actual damage to Agora that has been done by the message (which is nonzero, because it may confuse new players into thinking that a nonexistent office exists, but not as high as the rule). In most cases, though, there is no choice in punishment anyway; the Class of all the infractions below is 2, and the Base is 0 for the first investigated infraction, 1 for the second, and 2 for the rest. For each infraction I investigate below, I have given it a name, consisting of a number in square brackets placed immediately before the action that investigates it. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Gaelan is wearing a giant > question mark as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in > volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). [1] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 0-Blot penalty – by a preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Murphy is wearing history itself > as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 > (No Faking). [2] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 1-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false (abstract nouns are generally not wearable as hats). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Janet is wearing a pointy purple > witch hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule > 2471 (No Faking). [3] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – by a preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that cuddlybanana is wearing a banana > hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No > Faking). [4] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – by a preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that ais523 is wearing "THE SUPER > ULTIMATE WINNER'S HAT" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, > in volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). [5] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – by a preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that snail is wearing "the helix > fossil" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of > Rule 2471 (No Faking). [6] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false (in that "the helix fossil" is generally taken to be a virtual/electronic object that is therefore impossible for a real-life person to wear as a hat). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that juan is wearing "the entrance > gates of Agora" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in > volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). [7] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false (Agora does not have entrance gates). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Aris is wearing a hat explicitly > under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). I don't think this infraction, if it exists, can be investigated – it is not sufficiently unlikely that Aris was wearing a hat at the time of the message to establish that 4st believed Aris not to be (and thus, if the infraction exists it was automatically forgiven). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Murphy is wearing history itself > as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 > (No Faking). This is an attempt to note the same infraction twice. This succeeds, but does not create any additional duties on the Referee. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Yachay Wayllukuq is wearing "a > regular old ghost" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in > volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). [8] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that blob is wearing emself as a hat > explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). [9] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false (wearing oneself as a hat is not physically possible). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Anneke-Constantine is wearing > "the move Constantine" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, > in volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). [10] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – by a preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that kiako is wearing a hat > explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). I don't think this infraction, if it exists, can be investigated – it is not sufficiently unlikely that kiako was wearing a hat other than the movie Constantine at the time of the message to establish that 4st believed kiako not to be (and thus, if the infraction exists it was automatically forgiven). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Kate is wearing "Beatrice (bird > form)" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of > Rule 2471 (No Faking). [11] I'm unable to work out the reference here / what sort of hat this is meant to be, but in any case this makes it unlikely that Kate was wearing it. I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – by preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Zipzap is wearing a zipper as a > hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No > Faking). [12] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – by a preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that nix is wearing "anarchy" as a > hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No > Faking). [13] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false (abstract nouns are still generally not wearable as hats). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that omd is wearing the above-quoted > "report" as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of > Rule 2471 (No Faking). [14] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 2-Blot penalty – 4st should have known this statement was false (there was not sufficient time for omd to wear the report as a hat after it was created). > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that innalienableWright is wearing a > hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No > Faking). This infraction did not occur, and thus was not successfully noted; 4st stated that "innalienableWright is wearing as a hat", which is grammatically incorrect if "wearing" is treated as a verb, but a reasonable sentence if "wearing" is treated as an adjective. As such, 4st's statement was significantly different in meaning from the statement stated in the attempt to note an infraction. > * 4st publishing a falsy statement that beokirby is wearing a hat > explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking). This infraction did not occur, and thus was not successfully noted; 4st stated that "beokirby is wearing the same hat." which appears to be meaningless in context (as it is unclear what hat it is meant to be the same as). As such, 4st's statement was significantly different in meaning from the statement stated in the attempt to note an infraction. Additionally, given that the statement is meaningless, it is not sufficiently unlikely that 4st believed it to be false to establish an infraction (if you believe a statement to be meaningless, you do not believe it to be false). I make that a total of 25 Blots awarded to 4st, which is clearly disproportionate to the actual size of the offences here, but the rules do not allow me to award a lesser number. They do, however, allow forgiving some of the infractions, which would reduce the size of the fine. I will do this in a separate message, so that the dependent action intent is not buried in a long message (which tends to make it impossible to resolve). -- ais523 Referee
