status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3867
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3867 ===============================
In the above message, I broke a pledge.
==========================================================================
Caller: ATMunn
Judge: Jason
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by ATMunn: 16 Jul 2020 17:47:55
Assigned to Jason: 16 Jul 2020 21:27:16
Judged TRUE by Jason: 21 Jul 2020 23:19:37
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Though I did say the word I am forbidden to say due to the
pledge, it was 1) not a public message and 2) not an action. So, FALSE
would be logical. However, the pledge does say "in any context." Does
that still make it binding, even outside of public forums?
Caller's Evidence:
On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>> I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24
>> hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the
>> pledge shall be a class 1 crime.
>>
>
> I like tacos.
Rule 2450/9 (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. It is also Oathbreaking for a player to let a pledge
expire without taking an action e pledged to do in that pledge.
The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the pledge
explicitly states otherwise. A pledge ceases to exist at the end
of its time window.
If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
appropriate fine.
The Notary CAN destroy a pledge Without Objection, but SHOULD NOT
do so unless the pledge no longer serves any significant purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by Falsifian:
CFJ 3737 may be relevant here. The judge found that if someone agreed to a
contract stating parties SHALL NOT breathe, then breathing would be a
regulated action just for those parties. So, maybe saying "tacos" is a
regulated action just for you.
(Whether or not saying "tacos" is a regulated action, I suspect it is at
least an action, but I'm not sure.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jason's Arguments:
It is not disputed that ATMunn made the pledge and sent a message
containing "tacos" to the discussion forum.
First, we must determine whether this action violated the text of the
pledge. To "say" something is not defined in the rules, so it takes on
its natural language meaning. I don't believe that many English speakers
would bat an eye at it being said that someone "said" something in an
email e sent.
If Alice sent Bob an email containing "I will pay you 10 dollars if you
water my plants", and Bob went on to water Alice's plants and attempted
to collect the 10 dollars, most people would be confused if Alice said
"Oh, but I never /said/ I would pay you 10 dollars". Bob would
rightfully respond with "But it's right here in this email you sent
me!". If Alice then went on to say "But I never used my vocal cords to
vibrate air in such a way to create sound that is interpreted as words
that mean I would pay you 10 dollars.", then most people would
rightfully think Alice was crazy (or, perhaps, an Agoran). The important
part of the meaning of "say" is not the part where the words come out of
someone's lips, but the part where the words are communicated.
Since by a natural language reading ATMunn "said" the word "tacos" to
the discussion forum, and since eir pledge stated that e would not do
so, e violated that pledge. E raises the point that eir actions may not
violate the pledge because the violating message was sent to the
discussion forum. I find that this is not the case - e went out of eir
way to phrase the pledge with as broad a scope as possible (writing "in
any context"), and the fact that a message was sent to a discussion
forum does not mean that it was not a message.
Judged TRUE.
Falsifian, in eir gratuitous arguments, stated that Rule 2125 may
prevent ATMunn's actions from being a violation if sending a message to
a discussion forum is not a regulated action. I do not rule on that here
- this case merely asks me to decide whether the pledge was broken, not
whether the action constituted a violation of the rules. As such, there
is no Rule 2125 issue, and the pledge was broken based solely on its
content.
==========================================================================
