On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 08:07 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > Trying to use a loophole that pretty patently does not exist or relies > on misinterpretation of common definitions of words pretty clearly > falls in foul of "No Faking" to me. > > But even if it doesn't, if the CFJ is ruled against you, then you > clearly were Faking when you submitted a Surveyor report and should be > carded for that instance. > > Regardless, I don't buy "I thought it might work" as a defense when > the action is intended to avert the rules as intended. If it was a > legitimate accident, sure. But in the case of a deliberate attempt to > use the rules in a way that is not intended that fails due to an > action that is impossible, the player should be punished for > attempting an action that is clearly impossible.
We used to have rather stronger rules against lying in the public forum (they come back every now and then, I think mostly for "gotcha"-based gameplay rather than an actual attempt to ensure honesty). People tried to work around them with elaborate disclaimers, but they tended to make actions ineffective (you do something by announcement by saying that you do it, so if you say that you do something but you also say that anything in the message is potentially false, that's not really saying that you're doing it). I think my favourite was the rules against /misleading/ people in the public forum (rather than against /lying/ to them). That could be worked around via making your action so blatantly incorrect that nobody could be mislead into thinking that it worked. (It also gave me one of my favourite disclaimers, which didn't tend to block the rest of the action: "Note: although I believe that this works, this sort of scam has historically tended to fail, so please take care before concluding that this action has had an effect".) -- ais523
