If it "appears to do something", and doesn't do that something, then it's lying,
right? If the thing it appears to do would *otherwise* be unregulated (i.e.
without the No Faking rule), lying about doing it makes it regulated (because
lying is regulated by No Faking).
An example: sending a
But, AFIAK, unregulated actions aren’t INEFFECTIVE, they’re just meaningless.
No Faking only cares about things that are INEFFECTIVE. Therefore, No Faking
doesn’t prohibit unregulated actions.
Now that I think about it, No Faking says “believed…not to be effective”
lowercase. Is that
No Faking prohibits lying, for a specific definition of "lying" that
includes "not doing something that appears to do something" if you're
doing that to mislead.
Since lying is prohibited, the rules "limit" its performance, so it is
regulated under R2125:
An action is regulated if: (1)
This raises an interesting question: can you get around No Faking by doing
something that appears to do something, but due to a technicality, turns out to
be unregulated? Would No Faking even cover that in the first place? If not,
should it?
Gaelan
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Oh for crying out loud. I object to everything. To everything, literally.
I object.
It seems like it's the final stage before you turn abject.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Thanks for this. Not sure how I missed the parenthetical about ineffective
actions—that makes a lot of sense. And the history is very interesting!
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> So first, No Faking explicitly equates knowingly doing INEFFECTIVE actions
> with lying:
>
So first, No Faking explicitly equates knowingly doing INEFFECTIVE actions
with lying:
> (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective)
which implies that "not to be effective" is qualitatively different enough
from a "lie" so that it has to be specified as counting as Faking. But we
do
On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
> opinion.
After some more thought—maybe an INEFFECTIVE action could also be a “lie” if it
is intended to deceive.
For example, what if a player with a zombie
Interesting. R2124 governs "objections to dependent actions". Nothing in the
rules says anything about objections to non-dependent actions.
I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
opinion.
If taken as Acts, such objections are not R2125 restricted (don't
CFJ 1631 decided that subject lines are inconsequential and that intents
must be announced in the body.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:10 D. Margaux wrote:
> I object to the subject line of twg’s email of 1:00 PM EST in case it is
> an intent.
>
> I object to the subject line of this message that I
Perhaps e is announcing an intent to change eir position on everything,
including, for example, eir player status.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:06 D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by publishing
> the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are clearly many
> things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as a player of
Gaelan—winning the game would break your pledge! It would allow the PM to
appoint you to an office (speaker).
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:18 AM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I do the action incorporated in my modification of the title.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 22, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
>
Welcome back and nice to meet you!
> On Oct 22, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Because everyone else is doing it i do the action incorporated in the title
> for memes
> --
> From V.J. Rada
14 matches
Mail list logo
