status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4022
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4022 ===============================
I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes.
==========================================================================
Caller: 4st
Judge: nix
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by 4st: 30 Apr 2023 01:13:06
Assigned to nix: 08 May 2023 16:51:16
Judged TRUE by nix: 08 May 2023 17:33:26
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments PARADOX:
IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was
EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey, and could not violate no faking.
IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective,
and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS,
I should not be found guilty.
However, I was found guilty of violating No Faking.
Arbitor's Evidence:
Alleged rules violation:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016998.html
Noting of alleged violation:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051171.html
Investigation:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051175.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Gratuitous arguments for TRUE:
It's trivially TRUE that 4st was not found guilty of violating No
Faking by "collecting taxes". E was found guilty of violating No
Faking by asserting in public that collecting taxes (whether
successfully or unsuccessfully) was done "as Referee". The factual
matter of whether tax collection was EFFECTIVE is in fact IRRELEVANT
(as it impacts nothing in the game), what's relevant for the guilty
verdict is that the act of collection is not part of the Referee's
duties or abilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by 4st:
It is not part of my duties; it is also not not part of my duties.
With regard to ability, collecting taxes is not part of the rules, so it is
unregulated,
unless of course No Faking finds it effective, and therefore, successful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response by G.:
After some discussion on discord it was a bit clear 4st and I were
taking entirely different angles on this case. To clarify, I did not
address or think about the "unregulated" angle or R2125 at all, but
rather took No Faking at face value. So I defer to 4sts arguments on
the unregulated nature of the whole thing. My investigation was based
on the following, solely determining if eir statement was falsy:
- If 4st had written "As an official duty of the office of Referee, I
collect taxes" I think most people would say that was a lie, as there
was no official duty.
- 4st is noting that the phrasing e used "As Referee, I collect taxes"
was "technically true" as e was the Referee, and doing a (wholly
unofficial and unregulated) tax.
- My investigation asserted that "As Referee, I collect taxes" in a
message to OFF, with the phrase "game action", with no disclaimers
etc. was close enough in content and context to strongly imply "As an
official duty of the Referee, I collect taxes" - false advertising is
falsy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge nix's Arguments:
On April 29th 4st published the following message:
Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game
action for each active player:
I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of
Referee.
(The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay,
ais523, cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.)
Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done
on a case by case basis.
Furthermore, I intend to, without objection, declare apathy,
specifying all players.
--
4st
Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Up for debate is whether the attempt to collect taxes is a violation of
"No Faking" which reads:
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie.
A public statement is falsy if any of the following was true at
the time of publication:
* The statement was not true and the author knew or should have
known that it was not true.
* The author believed the statement to be not true.
A public statement is a lie if it is falsy and any of the
following is true:
* The author made the statement with intent to mislead.
* The author, in the same message, declared the statement to be
made "under penalty of No Faking" (or similar).
For the purposes of this rule, an attempt to perform an action by
publishing certain text constitutes an implicit statement that the
action was EFFECTIVE.
Merely quoting a statement or attempt does not constitute making
it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement or attempt
constitutes part of the statement or attempt for the purposes of
this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is
significant.
The above notwithstanding, a formal announcement of intent is
never a lie.
Violating No Faking requires a statement to be falsy and to either be
misleading or to be explicitly under penalty of No Faking. The rule
augments this by noting that claims to do something are claims they are
effective (thus making actions also statements about truth). Thus, 4st's
attempt to collect taxes is also interpreted as a statement that
collecting taxes was EFFECTIVE.
I see two truth statements in this: (1) 4st is referee, (2) 4st
collected taxes.
Was 4st referee when e did the action? Yes. So that condition is met.
Did 4st collect taxes? Well, the rules do not define, forbid, or allow
collecting taxes, nor taxes, nor collecting in general. Per "Regulated
Actions":
The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated
actions.
If it's not regulated, it's allowed. The rules don't define effective,
but they do define "ineffective" as "attempts are unsuccessful" in
"Mother, May I?". It's a reasonable conclusion then that effective just
means it is successful. Is doing an unregulated thing "successful"? The
rules are silent on this. There's certainly some things that are
unregulated that it'd be strange to consider unsuccessful ("I thank
you." "I celebrate.") so it seems contrary to game interests to
universally declare all unregulated actions ineffective.
Thus, I don't know whether 4st's attempt was effective or not, but I
don't think there's a strong enough argument to say it was certainly
ineffective or that 4st knew it would be.
Neither of the explicit claims in the contested action are false (or at
least, knowingly false), so there's no case for falsy under this analysis.
One gratuitous, by G., argues that the form of "As Referee, I..."
implies that it is an official duty of the referee to do the action. To
evaluate this I want to contrast "As referee, I collect taxes" with a
structurally similar statement: "As referee, I thank you" It strikes me
that both involve invoking a connect to an office that is not legally
relevant.
The former certainly feels more objectionable than the latter. Why is
that? I posit it's because it feels misleading. Misleading is the
second, and notably *separate*, criteria for No Faking. It's not
relevant to falsiness.
Should doing a misleading thing under the guise of a connection to an
office be Faking? Probably. But I'm unconvinced the current rule covers
it in situations that are not otherwise falsy.
I find CFJ 4022 TRUE.
==========================================================================
