That's interesting. If I were asked to define "gratuitous" outside of an Agoran consent I would say "given freely" was the primary meaning, and I would only think of "unwarranted" later if at all. Perhaps it's dialectal? Are you somewhere in the US? (Brit here.)
In direct answer to your question, I believe "Gratuitous Arguments" were at one point rule-defined as something people could add by announcement to open CFJs - people still call them that by habit even though they're informal now. I don't know what the original justification for the name was, though. -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, November 3, 2018 8:27 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’ve been wondering why we call them “gratuitous” arguments. I would have > thought that a “gratuitous” argument is one that is unwarranted, excessive, > or improper, or at least one that wouldn’t change the outcome of the question > under consideration. “Gratuitous” has a secondary meaning of “free of > charge,” but I wouldn’t immediately think of that when parsing the phrase > “gratuitous argument.” > > > On Nov 3, 2018, at 1:53 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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) > > > Pledges > > > 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.
