> On May 25, 2026, at 7:47 AM, Gregory Hayes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I pledge that, for the next twenty four hours, I will not roll a 1 on a D6. > This pledge may be cited as "Galle's First Dice Pledge", and violating it is > a class 0 infraction. > > I pledge that, for the next twenty four hours, I will not roll a 2 on a D6. > This pledge may be cited as "Galle's Second Dice Pledge", and violating it is > a class 0 infraction. > > I pledge that, for the next twenty four hours, I will not roll a 3 on a D6. > This pledge may be cited as "Galle's Third Dice Pledge", and violating it is > a class 0 infraction. > > I pledge that, for the next twenty four hours, I will not roll a 4 on a D6. > This pledge may be cited as "Galle's Fourth Dice Pledge", and violating it is > a class 0 infraction. > > I pledge that, for the next twenty four hours, I will not roll a 5 on a D6. > This pledge may be cited as "Galle's Fifth Dice Pledge", and violating it is > a class 0 infraction. > > I pledge that, for the next twenty four hours, I will not roll a 6 on a D6. > This pledge may be cited as "Galle's Sixth Dice Pledge", and violating it is > a class 0 infraction. > > - Galle
I hereby state that I just rolled a D6. My eyes were closed at the time. When I opened them, I learned that I had rolled an 3. I call for judgement on the following statement: "The Referee CAN investigate Galle for the infraction of violating Galle's Third Dice Pledge." I submit the text of Galle's Dice Pledges, the text of Rule 2531, and my statement regarding my die roll above as evidence, and the following as arguments: === According to Rules 2478 and 2672, the Referee CAN investigate my infraction so long as, A, it exists, and B, it is unforgiven. A has its own problems, but those are not the focus of this CFJ - I did indeed commit the infraction in question. This CFJ therefore depends on whether or not my infraction is unforgiven. Rule 2531 is very curious. It purports to apply forgiveness to infractions platonically, but also applies this forgiveness based on subjective factors. In particular it states that an infraction is automatically forgiven if "the alleged infracter can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence to have committed the infraction". This immediately raises two questions: 1. Can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence WHEN? 2. Can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence BY WHO? The first question is actually very simple to answer. Rule 2141 states that rules are "always taking effect". Therefore, because Rule 2531 does not specify a time, it is evaluated continuously at all times. The clause is triggered at the first instant its condition is true following the commission of the infraction. But what actually makes the condition true? "Establishing" a fact "by the preponderance of evidence" is an action. It requires that there is an agent somewhere who has some amount of evidence available to em and who is actively coming to conclusions based on that evidence. The interpretation of Rule 2531 depends on who, exactly, that agent is. I can think of four plausible interpretations: First, it might be a hypothetical omniscient agent, with access to all the possible evidence. In this case, however, the clause would simply be equivalent to "infractions are automatically forgiven if the infraction was not committed", which is both pointless (if an infraction isn't committed, it doesn't exist to be forgiven) and at odds with the clear intent of the rule to establish a standard of evidence. Common sense and the best interests of the game both weigh against this interpretation. Second, it might be the Referee, who after all will carry out the investigation. I think this would be somewhat plausible if the condition were evaluated at the time of investigation, but as it is, this would arbitrarily tie the effect of the clause to either, A, a person who may not even know that the infraction has been committed (if it depends on their current mindstate), or, B, a hypothetical future person, allowing for backward causality (if it depends on their mindstate at the time of investigation). Neither seems acceptable. There is also the additional factor that Rule 2531 simply does not say this. Third, it might be a hypothetical judge in a future CFJ. This seems likely to be what the writer of the rule actually meant, but has the same issues as the Referee, with the further complication that even the assignment of the judge would happen in the future, making any attempt to evaluate the condition dependent on backward causality. Finally, there is the literal interpretation. The rule is written in the passive voice, without specifying any particular agent. Therefore, I argue that the clause is triggered if and only if no actually existing agent can establish, by the preponderance of evidence, that the infractor committed the infraction. So long as there is any agent who can do this, the clause is not triggered. Note that forgiveness is an instantaneous process. There is no way to "take back" forgiveness. Once an infraction is forgiven, it is forgiven forever. I was alone when I rolled the D6, and had my eyes closed. Until I opened them, the preponderance of evidence available to me was against my having committed any one particular infraction - I knew that I had violated one of the Dice Pledges, but for each individual Dice Pledge it was more likely than not that I was still compliant. And until I reported my dice roll to Agora, no other agent had any evidence that I had violated one of the Dice Pledges at all, save for omniscient agents. Therefore, assuming that there are no omniscient agents, at the moment I rolled a 3 and violated Galle's Third Dice Pledge, the infraction was instantly and automatically forgiven by Rule 2531, and remains forgiven now. Therefore, I CANNOT be investigated for the infraction and the statement is FALSE. On the other hand, if there is at least one omniscient agent, we are in the situation contemplated above, where this clause of Rule 2531 is equivalent to "infractions are automatically forgiven if the infractor is innocent". In that case, I CAN be investigated for the infraction and the statement is TRUE. In conclusion, the truth or falsehood of this statement depends on whether or not an omniscient agent exists. Therefore, unless the judge wishes to weigh in on the existence of God, I believe that this CFJ should be judged DISMISS. Also, Rule 2531 is badly broken. ===
