The annual arenas are held twice a year, but not all...

@Italiya said in #130:

This does not require any proof, because after reading "annual", people will not understand that it is actually semi-annual. This is the essence of deception.
If you want to prove that it is deception instead of misleading then your intent "so that people don't understand that it is semi-annual" require a proof.

@Italiya said in #130:

Otherwise, you could disprove the statement: The name of the arena is necessarily false, since it cannot be true. That is, it can only be false in any case.
If something is inductively false and happens to be misleading does not automatically mean that the action leading to it was intended to mislead. You must prove that intention first. I haven’t disputed that the name is false from an inductive point of view.

Смотри, объясню ещё раз на русском языке, чтобы было понятнее:
Ты продаёшь квадратные столы. С целью создания узнаваемого и звучного названия ты называешь серию столов "Круглый Стол". Название как и в случае с Личессом, индуктивно ложно. Но значит ли это, что при выборе названия ты имел цель обмануть покупателей и заставить думать, что ты продаёшь круглые столы? Надеюсь, понятно, что ты такой цели не имел и ты лишь хотел сделать звучное название. Таким образом верно утверждать, что выбранное тобою название вводит в заблуждение, но не обманывает, так как при выборе названия ты такой цели не имел.

@Italiya said in #130: > This does not require any proof, because after reading "annual", people will not understand that it is actually semi-annual. This is the essence of deception. If you want to prove that it is deception instead of misleading then your intent "so that people don't understand that it is semi-annual" require a proof. @Italiya said in #130: > Otherwise, you could disprove the statement: The name of the arena is necessarily false, since it cannot be true. That is, it can only be false in any case. If something is inductively false and happens to be misleading does not automatically mean that the action leading to it was intended to mislead. You must prove that intention first. I haven’t disputed that the name is false from an inductive point of view. Смотри, объясню ещё раз на русском языке, чтобы было понятнее: Ты продаёшь квадратные столы. С целью создания узнаваемого и звучного названия ты называешь серию столов "Круглый Стол". Название как и в случае с Личессом, индуктивно ложно. Но значит ли это, что при выборе названия ты имел цель обмануть покупателей и заставить думать, что ты продаёшь круглые столы? Надеюсь, понятно, что ты такой цели не имел и ты лишь хотел сделать звучное название. Таким образом верно утверждать, что выбранное тобою название вводит в заблуждение, но не обманывает, так как при выборе названия ты такой цели не имел.

Italiya

#132

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #131:

If you want to prove that it is deception instead of misleading then your intent "so that people don't understand that it is semi-annual" require a proof.

If something is inductively false and happens to be misleading does not automatically mean that the action leading to it was intended to mislead. You must prove that intention first. I haven’t disputed that the name is false from an inductive point of view.

Смотри, объясню ещё раз на русском языке, чтобы было понятнее:
Ты продаёшь квадратные столы. С целью создания узнаваемого и звучного названия ты называешь серию столов "Круглый Стол". Название как и в случае с Личессом, индуктивно ложно. Но значит ли это, что при выборе названия ты имел цель обмануть покупателей и заставить думать, что ты продаёшь круглые столы? Надеюсь, понятно, что ты такой цели не имел и ты лишь хотел сделать звучное название. Таким образом верно утверждать, что выбранное тобою название вводит в заблуждение, но не обманывает, так как при выборе названия ты такой цели не имел.

Here you have to prove that people can somehow understand from the name that this is not an annual arena. If this is impossible, then again:

The name of the arena is necessarily false, since it cannot be true. That is, it can only be false in any case.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #131: > If you want to prove that it is deception instead of misleading then your intent "so that people don't understand that it is semi-annual" require a proof. > > > If something is inductively false and happens to be misleading does not automatically mean that the action leading to it was intended to mislead. You must prove that intention first. I haven’t disputed that the name is false from an inductive point of view. > > Смотри, объясню ещё раз на русском языке, чтобы было понятнее: > Ты продаёшь квадратные столы. С целью создания узнаваемого и звучного названия ты называешь серию столов "Круглый Стол". Название как и в случае с Личессом, индуктивно ложно. Но значит ли это, что при выборе названия ты имел цель обмануть покупателей и заставить думать, что ты продаёшь круглые столы? Надеюсь, понятно, что ты такой цели не имел и ты лишь хотел сделать звучное название. Таким образом верно утверждать, что выбранное тобою название вводит в заблуждение, но не обманывает, так как при выборе названия ты такой цели не имел. <If you want to prove that it is deception instead of misleading then your intent "so that people don't understand that it is semi-annual" require a proof.> Here you have to prove that people can somehow understand from the name that this is not an annual arena. If this is impossible, then again: The name of the arena is necessarily false, since it cannot be true. That is, it can only be false in any case.

Jean_Gunfighter

#133

@Italiya said in #132:

Here you have to prove that people can somehow understand from the name that this is not an annual arena.
То есть, пока ты не докажешь, что из названия "Круглый Стол" можно как-то понять, что стол квадратный, верно утверждать, что ты выбрал такое название, чтобы обмануть покупателей что ли, а не по другой причине?

Your claim that I must prove people can understand it’s not annual shifts the burden of proof. You’re asserting deception, so you must prove Lichess intended "so that people don’t understand that it is semi-annual," as you claimed. A misleading name doesn’t automatically mean deceptive intent—it could be for branding or oversight. Your claim that it’s deception "without proof" is an appeal to obviousness. If people think that Annual arena happens only once a year, but it happens twice it is misleading, not deception. To call it deception you need to prove the intent.

@Italiya said in #132: > Here you have to prove that people can somehow understand from the name that this is not an annual arena. То есть, пока ты не докажешь, что из названия "Круглый Стол" можно как-то понять, что стол квадратный, верно утверждать, что ты выбрал такое название, чтобы обмануть покупателей что ли, а не по другой причине? Your claim that I must prove people can understand it’s not annual shifts the burden of proof. You’re asserting deception, so you must prove Lichess intended "so that people don’t understand that it is semi-annual," as you claimed. A misleading name doesn’t automatically mean deceptive intent—it could be for branding or oversight. Your claim that it’s deception "without proof" is an appeal to obviousness. If people think that Annual arena happens only once a year, but it happens twice it is misleading, not deception. To call it deception you need to prove the intent.

Italiya

#134

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #133:

То есть, пока ты не докажешь, что из названия "Круглый Стол" можно как-то понять, что стол квадратный, верно утверждать, что ты выбрал такое название, чтобы обмануть покупателей что ли, а не по другой причине?

Your claim that I must prove people can understand it’s not annual shifts the burden of proof. You’re asserting deception, so you must prove Lichess intended "so that people don’t understand that it is semi-annual," as you claimed. A misleading name doesn’t automatically mean deceptive intent—it could be for branding or oversight. Your claim that it’s deception "without proof" is an appeal to obviousness. If people think that Annual arena happens only once a year, but it happens twice it is misleading, not deception. To call it deception you need to prove the intent.

This is a proven fraud. What kind of intent and how many of them there are is a further investigation. First, the fact of fraud is proven, then the intent. Or do you first convict a person of intent, then prove fraud?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #133: > @Jean_Gunfighter said in #133: > То есть, пока ты не докажешь, что из названия "Круглый Стол" можно как-то понять, что стол квадратный, верно утверждать, что ты выбрал такое название, чтобы обмануть покупателей что ли, а не по другой причине? > > Your claim that I must prove people can understand it’s not annual shifts the burden of proof. You’re asserting deception, so you must prove Lichess intended "so that people don’t understand that it is semi-annual," as you claimed. A misleading name doesn’t automatically mean deceptive intent—it could be for branding or oversight. Your claim that it’s deception "without proof" is an appeal to obviousness. If people think that Annual arena happens only once a year, but it happens twice it is misleading, not deception. To call it deception you need to prove the intent. This is a proven fraud. What kind of intent and how many of them there are is a further investigation. First, the fact of fraud is proven, then the intent. Or do you first convict a person of intent, then prove fraud?

Jean_Gunfighter

#135

@Italiya said in #134:

This is a proven fraud. What kind of intent and how many of them there are is a further investigation. First, the fact of fraud is proven, then the intent. Or do you first convict a person of intent, then prove fraud?
Um... You’ve shifted from "deception" to "fraud" to strengthen your claim, but this makes your argument even less valid. From both a legal and logical perspective, fraud requires proof of intent, benefit, and damage. You haven’t proven any of these, not even intent.
And yes, in both legal and logical terms, you must first prove intent (and for fraud, also benefit and damage) to establish fraud. Claiming "fraud is proven" first and intent is a "further investigation" reverses the correct order. Your logic commits the "affirming the consequent" fallacy:

D: deliberate deception
M: misleading inaccuracy
C: proven intent to mislead
D=>M: true
M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D)

For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D For fraud, it requires even more components: (M∧C∧B∧Dg) => F, where ( F) is fraud, ( B ) is benefit and ( Dg ) is damage. But for simplicity, we'll stick with the deception formula.

If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it’s misleading but not fraud unless you intended to make buyers think the tables are round.

@Italiya said in #134: > This is a proven fraud. What kind of intent and how many of them there are is a further investigation. First, the fact of fraud is proven, then the intent. Or do you first convict a person of intent, then prove fraud? Um... You’ve shifted from "deception" to "fraud" to strengthen your claim, but this makes your argument even less valid. From both a legal and logical perspective, fraud requires proof of intent, benefit, and damage. You haven’t proven any of these, not even intent. And yes, in both legal and logical terms, you must first prove intent (and for fraud, also benefit and damage) to establish fraud. Claiming "fraud is proven" first and intent is a "further investigation" reverses the correct order. Your logic commits the "affirming the consequent" fallacy: D: deliberate deception M: misleading inaccuracy C: proven intent to mislead D=>M: true M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D) For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D For fraud, it requires even more components: (M∧C∧B∧Dg) => F, where ( F) is fraud, ( B ) is benefit and ( Dg ) is damage. But for simplicity, we'll stick with the deception formula. If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it’s misleading but not fraud unless you intended to make buyers think the tables are round.

Italiya

#136

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #135:

Um... You’ve shifted from "deception" to "fraud" to strengthen your claim, but this makes your argument even less valid. From both a legal and logical perspective, fraud requires proof of intent, benefit, and damage. You haven’t proven any of these, not even intent.
And yes, in both legal and logical terms, you must first prove intent (and for fraud, also benefit and damage) to establish fraud. Claiming "fraud is proven" first and intent is a "further investigation" reverses the correct order. Your logic commits the "affirming the consequent" fallacy:

D: deliberate deception
M: misleading inaccuracy
C: proven intent to mislead
D=>M: true
M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D)

For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D For fraud, it requires even more components: (M∧C∧B∧Dg) => F, where ( F) is fraud, ( B ) is benefit and ( Dg ) is damage. But for simplicity, we'll stick with the deception formula.

If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it’s misleading but not fraud unless you intended to make buyers think the tables are round.

Once again to the wording.

Intentional misrepresentation, or deception, is an intentional act intended to cause another person to believe false information or false facts.

Does the name of the area make you believe a lie?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #135: > Um... You’ve shifted from "deception" to "fraud" to strengthen your claim, but this makes your argument even less valid. From both a legal and logical perspective, fraud requires proof of intent, benefit, and damage. You haven’t proven any of these, not even intent. > And yes, in both legal and logical terms, you must first prove intent (and for fraud, also benefit and damage) to establish fraud. Claiming "fraud is proven" first and intent is a "further investigation" reverses the correct order. Your logic commits the "affirming the consequent" fallacy: > > D: deliberate deception > M: misleading inaccuracy > C: proven intent to mislead > D=>M: true > M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D) > > For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D For fraud, it requires even more components: (M∧C∧B∧Dg) => F, where ( F) is fraud, ( B ) is benefit and ( Dg ) is damage. But for simplicity, we'll stick with the deception formula. > > If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it’s misleading but not fraud unless you intended to make buyers think the tables are round. Once again to the wording. Intentional misrepresentation, or deception, is an intentional act intended to cause another person to believe false information or false facts. Does the name of the area make you believe a lie?

Jean_Gunfighter

#137

@Italiya said in #136:

Does the name of the area make you believe a lie?
Yes, the name "Annual Arena" can mislead people into thinking the event is yearly when it occurs twice a year. But misleading (M) isn’t deception (D) without proof of intent (C), as your own definition states: deception requires an «intentional act intended(!) to cause another person to believe false information.» You’ve shown the name is misleading but haven’t proven Lichess intended to deceive.
D=>M: true
M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D)
For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D

Ещё раз про круглый стол, на русском (для ясности) и английском: если ты продаёшь квадратные столы и называешь их «Круглый Стол» для звучного бренда, это может ввести в заблуждение, заставив думать, что столы круглые, но это не обман, пока не доказано, что ты хотел заставить покупателей поверить в ложь.
eng:
If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it may mislead people into thinking the tables are round, but it’s not deception unless you intended to make them believe a lie.] Similarly, the «Annual Arena» name is misleading, but not deception without evidence of Lichess’s intent. Can you provide such evidence, like statements or actions from Lichess?

@Italiya said in #136: > Does the name of the area make you believe a lie? Yes, the name "Annual Arena" can mislead people into thinking the event is yearly when it occurs twice a year. But misleading (M) isn’t deception (D) without proof of intent (C), as your own definition states: deception requires an «intentional act intended(!) to cause another person to believe false information.» You’ve shown the name is misleading but haven’t proven Lichess intended to deceive. D=>M: true M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D) For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D Ещё раз про круглый стол, на русском (для ясности) и английском: если ты продаёшь квадратные столы и называешь их «Круглый Стол» для звучного бренда, это может ввести в заблуждение, заставив думать, что столы круглые, но это не обман, пока не доказано, что ты хотел заставить покупателей поверить в ложь. eng: If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it may mislead people into thinking the tables are round, but it’s not deception unless you intended to make them believe a lie.] Similarly, the «Annual Arena» name is misleading, but not deception without evidence of Lichess’s intent. Can you provide such evidence, like statements or actions from Lichess?

Italiya

#138

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #137:

Yes, the name "Annual Arena" can mislead people into thinking the event is yearly when it occurs twice a year. But misleading (M) isn’t deception (D) without proof of intent (C), as your own definition states: deception requires an «intentional act intended(!) to cause another person to believe false information.» You’ve shown the name is misleading but haven’t proven Lichess intended to deceive.
D=>M: true
M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D)
For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D

Ещё раз про круглый стол, на русском (для ясности) и английском: если ты продаёшь квадратные столы и называешь их «Круглый Стол» для звучного бренда, это может ввести в заблуждение, заставив думать, что столы круглые, но это не обман, пока не доказано, что ты хотел заставить покупателей поверить в ложь.
eng:
If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it may mislead people into thinking the tables are round, but it’s not deception unless you intended to make them believe a lie.] Similarly, the «Annual Arena» name is misleading, but not deception without evidence of Lichess’s intent. Can you provide such evidence, like statements or actions from Lichess?

<Yes, the name "Annual Arena" can mislead people into thinking the event is yearly when it occurs twice a year. >

can mislead people? And what can not mislead?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #137: > Yes, the name "Annual Arena" can mislead people into thinking the event is yearly when it occurs twice a year. But misleading (M) isn’t deception (D) without proof of intent (C), as your own definition states: deception requires an «intentional act intended(!) to cause another person to believe false information.» You’ve shown the name is misleading but haven’t proven Lichess intended to deceive. > D=>M: true > M=>D: false, or ¬(M=>D) > For deception to hold: (M ∧ C) => D > > Ещё раз про круглый стол, на русском (для ясности) и английском: если ты продаёшь квадратные столы и называешь их «Круглый Стол» для звучного бренда, это может ввести в заблуждение, заставив думать, что столы круглые, но это не обман, пока не доказано, что ты хотел заставить покупателей поверить в ложь. > eng: > If you sell square tables and call them "Round Table" for a catchy brand, it may mislead people into thinking the tables are round, but it’s not deception unless you intended to make them believe a lie.] Similarly, the «Annual Arena» name is misleading, but not deception without evidence of Lichess’s intent. Can you provide such evidence, like statements or actions from Lichess? <Yes, the name "Annual Arena" can mislead people into thinking the event is yearly when it occurs twice a year. > can mislead people? And what can not mislead?

Jean_Gunfighter

edited

#139

@Italiya said in #138:

can mislead people? And what can not mislead?
The name «Annual Arena» would not mislead if the event actually happened once a year, as some Lichess arenas do, or if players saw the schedule. That’s why I used «can» instead of «will» for precision. But misleading isn’t deception without proof of Lichess’s intent to deceive. Can you provide such evidence?

@Italiya said in #138: > can mislead people? And what can not mislead? The name «Annual Arena» would not mislead if the event actually happened once a year, as some Lichess arenas do, or if players saw the schedule. That’s why I used «can» instead of «will» for precision. But misleading isn’t deception without proof of Lichess’s intent to deceive. Can you provide such evidence?

Italiya

#140

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #139:

The name «Annual Arena» would not mislead if the event actually happened once a year, as some Lichess arenas do, or if players saw the schedule. That’s why I used «can» instead of «will» for precision. But misleading isn’t deception without proof of Lichess’s intent to deceive. Can you provide such evidence?

What does "if" have to do with it? Is the title misleading or not?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #139: > The name «Annual Arena» would not mislead if the event actually happened once a year, as some Lichess arenas do, or if players saw the schedule. That’s why I used «can» instead of «will» for precision. But misleading isn’t deception without proof of Lichess’s intent to deceive. Can you provide such evidence? What does "if" have to do with it? Is the title misleading or not?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.