On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 02:51 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:46 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-business > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > I confirm, under penalty of no faking, this message contains a > > game action. > > > > -- > > snail > > I note that snail committed the infraction of breaking Rule 2471 (No > Faking) in the above quoted message. > > CFJ: The quoted message contains a game action. > > Arguments for PARADOXICAL: the potential game action in question is a > crime. If a crime was committed, the statement is true, and thus no > crime was committed. But if no crime was committed, the statement is > false, and a crime was committed. > > Also this has real consequences because the referee now may have an > obligation to investigate the crime.
As has been pointed out elsethread by Janet, the CFJ doesn't match the actual alleged infraction: the CFJ is checking whether the message contains a game action, whereas the infraction is checking whether the publisher believed the message to be not true (i.e. whether snail believed the message to contain a game action). In general, truthfulness rules don't work as a way to "escalate" the truth of arbitrary statements into becoming relevant for Agora: what matters is not whether the statement is true, but whether the player vouching for it believed that it was true. It seems very unlikely (well beyond the "preponderance of the evidence" standard) that snail did believe that "this message contains a game action" was a true (as opposed to paradoxical) statement, especially given that the "I note that" in the follow-up message would probably be a No Faking violation in of itself if the infraction hadn't been committed (although the "intent to mislead" is a bit less clear there: the message seems to have envisaged the possibility that the noting would fail, which might be enough of a disclaimer to cause the message to not be misleading). It is also worth noticing that the attempt to note the infraction did in fact fail; there isn't actually a defined action of noting your own infraction (rule 2478 defines an action of noting "any other player's" infraction, but noting your own infraction doesn't fit that definition), so the action by announcement fails. I think that that was probably unintentional (and thus not done with intent to mislead). This in turn means that there's no actual obligation on the Referee to do anything here. However, the situation is nonetheless an apparently intentional rules breach as part of a win attempt, something which I think should be taken seriously. That said, it was also essentially harmless: a rules breach for the sake of being a rules breach, but not one that actually harms any of the other players, and that lead to some interesting gameplay. These factors cancel out somewhat, arguing for a penalty in the middle of the range. I investigate snail's infraction, by sending the message in the inner quote above, of claiming (under penalty of No Faking) something which e did not believe to be true (as opposed to paradoxical): this is a violation of rule 2471, with a Base of 0 and Class of 2, and I specify a penalty of 1 blot for it. -- ais523 Referee
