You missed my gratuitous arguments, but you ended up with the same conclusion so whatever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On 11/3/2018 3:22 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
== Context message ==

1 Nov 2018, V.J. Rada:
 > I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson.
 > The pledge I made above is true.
 > I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking.

== Callers' messages ==

1 Nov 2018, ATMunn:
 > I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the
 > below quoted message."

1 Nov 2018, twg:
 > And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the
 > crime of Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well
 > cover all possible bases.

== Arguments ==

1 Nov 2018, G.:
 > There may be a meta-faking here.
 > Pledges are to perform or not perform actions, pledging that you are
 > someone or something isn't pledging an action (yes, "to be" is a verb,
 > but I still argue that a state of being isn't an action in this
 > sense).
 > So this fails to make a pledge, so is INEFFECTIVE.  So if e was trying
 > to fool people into thinking this was an effective pledge, that could
 > be Faking.

== Relevant Rules ==

Rule 2471/1 (Power=1)
No Faking

       A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A
       statment is a lie if its publisher either knew or believed it to
       be not to be true at the time e published it (or, in the case of
       an action, not to be effective), and it was made with the intent
       to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
       it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
       clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
       part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
       falsity of the whole is what is significant.

       The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal
       announcement of intent is never a lie.

Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)

       If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
       refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
       within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
       Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
       otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
       pledge explicitly states otherwise.

       If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
       SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
       appropriate fine.

== Judgement of CFJ 3680 ==

The Pledges rule doesn't use all that much terminology, to be honest, so
it is a bit hard to check where the rules lie here. From my reading,
V.J.'s claim to have made a pledge is INEFFECTIVE since e did not pledge
to "perform (or refrain from performing)" any actions. Since e did not
actually create the pledge, the next statement affirming the
truthfulness of the pledge is also INEFFECTIVE. As there is no pledge,
V.J. did not commit the crime of Oathbreaking.

I judge FALSE.

== Judgement of CFJ 3679 ==

Since, per CFJ 3680, the pledge mentioned does not exist, the statement
affirming the pledge's truthfulness is also INEFFECTIVE. INEFFECTIVE
statements are not lies.

The next paragraph also contains no lies.

I also believe G.'s arguments to be irrelevent to the case, since they
involve an abstraction of the actual statements, and No Faking does not
allow people to be punished for such things.

I judge FALSE.

Reply via email to