On 3/12/24 14:39, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 14:29 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> Or, in the alternative, based on the authority Rule 2125, Rule 2471 >> prohibits sending a message with certain attributes, and that is what >> the infraction is. So, the infraction isn't contained within the message >> in any case. Thus, even if all infractions are judged to be game >> actions, whether or not sending the message was an infraction has no >> bearing on whether the message *contained* a game action. So, the >> message does not contain any game actions and the statement is FALSE. > Something I'm confused about (and which is relevant to me because I > need to make a ruling as Referee): I think it's undisputed that rule > 2125 allows the rules to prohibit the sending of messages even if doing > so is not an action (it says that very explicitly). However, it is less > clear whether rule 2471 actually makes use of that permission; it says > "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie.", and "SHALL > NOT" is defined (by rule 2152) as "Performing the described action > violates the rule in question." > > If rule 2471 is therefore read as "It is a violation of this rule to > perform the action of making a public statement that is a lie", it > therefore matters whether or not the making of the statement is an > action, because rule 2471 criminalises only statements that are > actions, not statements that are not actions.
I don't dispute that sending the message is an "action", but even so it doesn't have to be a "game action". > For what it's worth, I'm currently leaning (based on the above > expansion) towards a reading in which rule 2471 defines lying to be an > unregulated action that is nonetheless a rules violation (rule 2125 > states that the rules cannot proscribe unregulated actions, except for > the sending of public messages, so this is not a violation of rule > 2125). But I'd be interested in feedback from other players in this > respect. > I wrote the R2125 clause, and that's the intent, yes. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
