OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
On Mon, 2024-04-01 at 21:44 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > On Apr 1, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > Quite a lot has happened in the last couple of hours. I have > > taken complete control of Agora. > > > > Full explanation here: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxIE1hr0w4 ) > > I note that, in the quoted message, Yachay has violated R2471 by making > a false statement (“I have taken complete control of Agora”) with intent > to mislead. This statement was clearly falsy (it was not true, and the author of the statement should have known that it was not true). So the question is, was it made with intent to mislead? I think it probably was not intended to mislead readers as to its truth value – at least, not for very long. The context of the message is such that a reasonable player might suspect that the dictatorship did not actually exist (I know that I was suspicious immediately). However, rule 2471 doesn't require an intent to mislead people into thinking that the statement was true specifically – it just requires an intent to mislead, with no further qualifiers. In this case, the message appears to have been made with the intent to mislead readers into clicking on a particular link, and the specified statement is part of that. As such, an infraction has been committed. I investigate this infraction by Yachay (making a falsy statement, "I have taken complete control of Agora" with intent to mislead, in violation of rule 2471). For this infraction, the Class is 2 and the Base is 0. I specify a penalty of 1 Blot (I can't see a reason to choose a value other than the middle of the range). -- ais523 Referee
OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 08:37 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:55 AM Goren Barak via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I will now ratify ratify the following document, using Rule 2202 > > (Ratification Without Objection): > > > > Effective a immediately, Goren now has 500 radiance. > > Their voting strength is now 15. > > Their Base Rockiness has also gone up to 100. > > > > Rule 2202 tells me to make my intentions clear, so my intentions are to > > win. > > > > Neither Rule 2202 nor Rule 1728 specify a period in which you can > > object, so that period is over. You can no longer object to this > > document. Thank you for your time. > > > > Per R2202, which Goren cited in the above: > A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use > Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) > document containing incorrect or Indeterminate information 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 Infraction of Endorsing Forgery. > > I note the above infraction committed by Goren. I suggest that the Referee > investigate and find em guilty of 0 blots, since we are kind to new players. > If e is found guilty of more blots, I plan to forgive em so e will have no > blots. :) > > (Goren, I recommend you keep trying to do things! This, one of the highest > crimes, could only get you 8 blots maximum! ONLY 8! you need 40 to even be > exiled as an outlaw! FOUR ZERO! FORTY!) As far as I can tell, no infraction was actually committed here. R2202 prohibits two things, neither of which appears to have happened: * It prohibits certain uses of Ratification Without Objection, but Goren did not successfully use the rule. * It prohibits certain announcements of intent to use Ratification Without Objection. This is most naturally interpreted as (and was probably meant as) "tabling an intent to use" Ratification Without Objection, which Goren didn't do. It can be interpreted using the natural-language definition of "announce intent", in which case Goran announced intention to use rule 2202 "Ratification Without Objection", but did not announce intent to use the process of Ratification Without Objection, and it seems to me that the rule should be interpreted as referring to the process rather than the rule. Because there was no infraction committed, the attempt to note it failed and I have nothing to investigate. -- ais523 Referee
OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
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
OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
On Fri, 2023-08-25 at 06:01 -1000, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > H referee, > > I note that 4st violated r2143 by failing to publish the heralds weekly > report last week. In terms of penalties, I’ll mention I believe e missed > the previous week too, and eir resignation below gives no aid to the > incoming herald in reconstructing the report - it would have been easier > under the circumstances had e resigned weeks ago. Keeping the other parts > of the office while having a professed lack of interest in the duties made > it materially more difficult for anyone to take over. > (I mean this to be respectful of 4st’s choices - there’s nothing wrong with > losing interest in a task, but it’s reasonable for the penalty to reflect > the material difficulties caused by the late resignation). 4st's most recent Herald weekly report was posted on 3 August. As such, e indeed did not perform the Herald's weekly duties in the week of August 14. This is a violation of rule 2143 (an infraction of Weekly Tardiness). Within the last month, 4st has committed this infraction on: - 21 August (the infraction that was noted in the quote above); - 14 August; - 31 July (an infraction that was noted and investigated earlier). That means that this a Class 4 infraction. The Base of this infraction is currently 1 (due to an investigated infraction by the same person having been committed within the past 30 days), and the infraction has not been forgiven. As such, I am required to, when investigating this infraction, specify a number of Blots in the range 1 to 4 inclusive. I investigate this infraction, specifying 2 Blots. (This causes 4st to be given 2 Blots.) I consider a penalty towards the middle of the range to be appropriate here because a) regular asset reports are very helpful to avoid losing track of the gamestate, and officers should be encouraged to avoiding missing weeks, but b) under the current ruleset, Radiance doesn't change very often (we repealed most of the ways to gain it), and thus missing this report has had a smaller impact on gameplay than missing some of the other asset reports might; and 4st has been performing the other duties of the Herald office. -- ais523 Referee
OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > You didn't out yourself, and it was noticed - I checked the ADoP > report a couple days ago but didn't sit down to do duties until > today. > > H. Referee, I note that 4st violated R2143 (infraction: tardiness) by > failing to publish a Herald's Weekly Report last week. As far as I can tell, 4st had only two posts in the week of July 24, and neither contained a Herald's Weekly Report. This is failure to perform the Herald's weekly duties, and a violation of rule 2143 (an infraction of Weekly Tardiness). This appears to be eir first Weekly Tardiness infraction within the previous month. As such, it is a class 1 infraction. I investigate this infraction, specifying 1 blot. (This creates 1 blot in 4st's possession.) -- ais523 Referee
OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction
On Sun, 2023-07-16 at 18:01 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 3:11 PM 4st nomic via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > CoE: This is ratified, however, I still submit the CoE that "Secure > > Contain Protect" is not in the proposal pool or otherwise voted > > upon. > > Referee!! > I note an infraction for violating rule 2201: > The Promotor failed to respond to this CoE in a timely manner. A close reading of rule 2201 discovers that the duty to respond to a CoE depends not on whether or not the original document is self- ratifying, but rather on whether its publisher was required to publish it. There is some inclarity as to specifically which document 4st was doubting; e quoted a proposal distribution and the Promotor's proposal pool report. The latter is part of the Promotor's weekly report (rule 1607), and therefore the Promotor is required to publish it (rule 2143); the former is required if the proposal was in the proposal pool at the start of the week. Proposal 9002, the proposal being distributed, was added to the proposal pool on Monday June 19, within the same week, and as such the Promotor had not yet incurred a requirement to publish the distribution of proposal 9002. This means that 4st's action, of issuing a doubt in a document, failed; rule 2201 requires the action of doubting a document to "identify a document", among other things. Neither eir statement "in the proposal pool or otherwise voted on", nor eir quote, unambiguously defines a specific document, and so eir action of doubting is likely to have failed due to ambiguity; the details of which document was being identified matter, because it affects whether the Promotor has a duty to respond. Even with the possible interpretation of "the doubted document is the entire message", not everything within that message was required to be published, and thus there is no SHALL-duty for its author to respond to a CoE on the message as a whole. As such, I believe that there was no infraction committed, and thus it was not possible to note it. To be more precise: I cannot establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the infraction was committed (rule 2531(1)), and as such, even if the infraction did occur (and thus was noted), it would be automatically forgiven and I would thus be unable to investigate it. -- ais523 Referee
