On 07/20/17 19:07, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read: >>> >>> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe >>> to be possible so as to deceive others. > What's the standard for belief. Like, if I'm 50/50 "eh, this might or might > not work, the rules are silent"? (That's a pretty fair description on how > I felt about the hashed pledge, for example).
I think that's a half-empty/half-full question. Personally my standard for 'someone believes something' is >50. But also note that it includes 'so as to deceive others'. You didn't attempt to deceive others into thinking the hash definitely works, and you didn't lie about your certainty on it. By the same token, saying "If this is possible, I do this" should circumvent the 'belief standard' because you've clearly warned that it may not be possible. Instead, I believe this applies to circumstances where a player purports contradictory beliefs within different sets of actions without disowning either set. E may not be certain either set of actions is IMPOSSIBLE, but there's no way e can believe both are simultaneously possible. > > Written the above way, a 50/50 would mean that I don't fully believe it's > possible, but I also don't believe it's impossible. Sill, that would mean > Guilty under the proposed rule. > > If you wrote it "which e believes is IMPOSSIBLE" instead of "not believe to > be > possible", which is the same phrasing as the current rule, then the 50/50 case > would be not guilty. > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
