==============================  CFJ 1341  ==============================

    neil committed the Crime of Misrepresentation in the message with
    Message-ID <15422.32050.200019.402505@tarski.2y.net>.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Murphy:                       11 Jan 2002 08:57:40 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         30 Jan 2002 15:48:23 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     06 Feb 2002 17:47:26 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

neil made the statement of fact "Read the Ruleset Week will be in
January this year!" as part of a public message.  This statement of
fact is false (Rule 1750) and thus constitutes Misrepresentation
(Rule 1497).

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

In honor of Rule 101, as is only appropriate during Read the Ruleset Week,
the Court finds this CFJ to be FALSE.

The Crime of Misrepresentation is a serious charge, and must be considered
carefully.  At first, this case seems straightforward.  The sentence
written by Neil and posted to the Public Forum, "Read the Ruleset Week
will be in January this year!" was clearly false, and Neil was most likely
aware of this fact.  It is possible to get around this by arguing that it
was a "prediction" rather than a "statement of fact" but it is not
desirable for this Court to side-step the true issue at hand, that of free
speech in Agora.

In Agora, the concept of free speech is enshrined as strongly, if not more
strongly, than it is in many "enlightened" Real World governments.
Primarily, it is embodied in Rule 101; that is, any form of speech not
"regulated" is permitted.  As such, a high bar should be set for judging
that any particular item of speech is "regulated", especially if that
speech does not contain a direct game action.  (The Court finds that
Neil's sentence did not contain any such action...it was not in response to
any request for information nor did it act on its own to change
substantial game properties).

So the question is, was Neil's sentence regulated by Rule 1497, Truth in
Advertising?  As reads 1497:  "Any Player who willfully makes a false
statement of fact as part of a public message... commits the Class 4 Crime
of Misrepresentation."  However, the need to limit the effects of this
regulation is recognized later in the Rule itself, by the careful
definition of "willfully":

      "For the purposes of this Rule, a false statement of fact is made
      "willfully" when the Player making it, at the time the statement
      was made, has the intention to make a false statement of fact
      and knowledge that the statement actually made was false."

So to determine if Neil acted willfully, we must judge Neil's intention.
In doing so, it would be wrong to take the single sentence of the message
out of context as being Neil's "statement."  Unless the writer clearly
delimits a section of a communication as a "statement" (as in a CFJ),
picking a single piece of a longer communication in order to slant its
meaning is misleading, especially of the original communication is
clearly and publicly available.

In the context of eir entire communication, the Court finds it reasonable
to assume that Neil meant the message to be an amusing aside, and not
mistaken by anyone as a Statement of Fact.  It is clear to this Court that
no reasonable person, reading the Neil's entire message (and thus having
access to the full context of Neil's statement, as Neil intended), would
believe that it was Neil's intent to put forward false information on the
game state, for the purpose of misleading others or for any other reason.

In other words, in the words of CFJ 827, it is reasonably clear from the
whole message that Neil's sentence is *not* presented (by Neil) as being
correct.

Additionally, the Court can find no damage, real or perceived, that
occurred to any entity as a result of taking this message as a false
statement of fact.  While this absence of damage is not enough on its own
to discount Misrepresentation, as a secondary consideration it strengthens
the argument given above, as it places Neil's Statement more under the
auspices of Rule 101 than Rule 1497.

The Court finds that such clear humor, satire, etc., should be strongly
encased in Rule 101's protection as contributing to both free speech and
enjoyment of Agora, and thus judges this CFJ to be FALSE.

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Evidence:

Message in question:
[ http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m5998.html ]

Michael Slone schrieb:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 12:41:55AM -0500, Neil Moore wrote:
> > Alas, you must provide a proto-Budget to successfully nominate for
> > Treasuror.  Still almost 6 days to go, though.
>
> The rules do not indicate what happens if a player who is not a nominee
> for an office with a budget submits a proto-budget, but they do require
> that a nominee for an office with a budget must submit a proto-budget.

Ah.  I had misunderstood the rule.  Read the Ruleset Week will be in
January this year!

Murphy's nomination was in fact successful.  My apologies.  Murphy, you
have until 17 Jan 2002 01:27:48 UTC to submit a proto-Budget.


Rule 1497/7 (Power=1)
Truth in Advertising

      Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part
      of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for
      Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a Judicial or
      Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose information
      known to that Player, commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.

      Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part
      of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for
      information where that Player was required to respond, or as
      part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then
      required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.

      For the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered
      an Officer.

      For the purposes of this Rule, a false statement of fact is made
      "willfully" when the Player making it, at the time the statement
      was made, has the intention to make a false statement of fact
      and knowledge that the statement actually made was false.
      Particularly, a Player who makes a false statement of fact
      through excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable
      reliance on the representations of another, shall not be
      considered to have willfully made a false statement of fact.

      A conclusion as to the interpretation of the Rules or their
      application to a particular situation is not a "statement of
      fact".

[CFJ 827: If it is not clear that information is *not* presented
 as correct, it is.  Attempting an illegal move can, if the Player
 reports the move and knows it to be illegal, be a violation of this
 Rule.]

========================================================================