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.
