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

@Italiya said in #140:

What does "if" have to do with it?
«If» covers cases where the title can or cannot be misleading, explaining why I used «can» instead of «will» for precision. The name «Annual Arena» can be misleading if it happens twice a year and a user didn’t check the schedule, but it’s not deception without proof of Lichess’s intent to deceive. Can you provide such evidence?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #141:

«If» covers cases where the title can or cannot be misleading, explaining why I used «can» instead of «will» for precision. The name «Annual Arena» can be misleading if it happens twice a year and a user didn’t check the schedule, but it’s not deception without proof of Lichess’s intent to deceive. Can you provide such evidence?

Did I ask about the schedule? The name of the arena makes you believe in lies?

@Italiya said in #142:

Did I ask about the schedule? The name of the arena makes you believe in lies?

• Have you stopped looking at the moon yet?
• But I wasn’t looking at it, I was watching a movie.
• Did I ask you about a movie? Have you stopped looking at the moon or not?
  This is the kind of discussion you’re engaging in. A reasoned discussion is only possible if both participants engage constructively. It’s a two-way street.

If you didn’t ask about something, it doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. If it’s irrelevant, you must prove it logically; otherwise, it’s a rhetorical tactic I won’t accept.

Answer these questions:

1. Is the schedule publicly available for anyone to check?
2. Would the name of the arena mislead you if you’ve seen the schedule and know it’s held twice a year?

If the answer to the first is «yes» and the second is «no», then using «can» instead of «will» is correct for precision, as I did.

You’re equivocating by using «lies», which implies intent to deceive. I’ve agreed the name «Annual Arena» can be misleading, but to call it deception, you must prove intent.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #143:

• Have you stopped looking at the moon yet?
• But I wasn’t looking at it, I was watching a movie.
• Did I ask you about a movie? Have you stopped looking at the moon or not?
  This is the kind of discussion you’re engaging in. A reasoned discussion is only possible if both participants engage constructively. It’s a two-way street.

If you didn’t ask about something, it doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. If it’s irrelevant, you must prove it logically; otherwise, it’s a rhetorical tactic I won’t accept.

Answer these questions:

1. Is the schedule publicly available for anyone to check?
2. Would the name of the arena mislead you if you’ve seen the schedule and know it’s held twice a year?

If the answer to the first is «yes» and the second is «no», then using «can» instead of «will» is correct for precision, as I did.

You’re equivocating by using «lies», which implies intent to deceive. I’ve agreed the name «Annual Arena» can be misleading, but to call it deception, you must prove intent.

There is only one tournament on the schedule, "annual" rapid. The name of the arena makes you believe in lies?

@Italiya said in #144:

There is only one tournament on the schedule, "annual" rapid.
By «schedule» I mean both upcoming events and the history of past events.

1. Is the tournament history publicly available for anyone to check?
2. Would the name «Annual Arena» mislead you if you’ve seen the tournament history and know it’s held twice a year?

@Italiya said in #144:

The name of the arena makes you believe in lies?
I already answered this question above:
You’re equivocating by using the term «lies», which implies intent to deceive. I’ve agreed the name «Annual Arena» can be misleading, but to call it deception, you must prove intent.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #145:

By «schedule» I mean both upcoming events and the history of past events.

1. Is the tournament history publicly available for anyone to check?
2. Would the name «Annual Arena» mislead you if you’ve seen the tournament history and know it’s held twice a year?

I already answered this question above:
You’re equivocating by using the term «lies», which implies intent to deceive. I’ve agreed the name «Annual Arena» can be misleading, but to call it deception, you must prove intent.

History and schedule are different things in different places.
What else needs to be checked? If there was no arena history, would you say that you can look in the history of other users' games, and if that were impossible, would you suggest going to the developers and asking in person? If it were perceived like that, then the concepts of "lies and intentional misrepresentation" would not exist.

The name of the arena makes you believe in a false fact, and the user is not obliged to guess where to check it.
As in any other case of intentional misrepresentation, it becomes clear after the fact.

The one who did not guess to check is not to blame, but the one who used false statements.

@Italiya said in #146:

History and schedule are different things in different places.
What else needs to be checked? If there was no arena history, would you say that you can look in the history of other users' games, and if that were impossible, would you suggest going to the developers and asking in person? If it were perceived like that, then the concepts of "lies and intentional misrepresentation" would not exist.

The name of the arena makes you believe in a false fact, and the user is not obliged to guess where to check it.
As in any other case of intentional misrepresentation, it becomes clear after the fact.

The one who did not guess to check is not to blame, but the one who used false statements.

1. On «schedule» and «history».
   In English, the word «schedule» can include both upcoming and past events when referring to documentation. On Lichess, the tournament history is part of the publicly accessible schedule system. I hope this clarifies what I mean.

2. Why «can» instead of «will».
   The name «Annual Arena» can be misleading if the tournament is held twice a year and a player hasn’t seen the tournament history. But if a player knows from the schedule that it occurs twice, it won’t mislead. Logically:

( M ): misleading
( D ): deliberate deception
( C ): proven intent to mislead
D => M: true
M =>D: false
For ( D ): (M∧C) => D

3. On your argument about players’ games and developers.
   Your example doesn’t apply, as it distorts the situation:

• The tournament history is part of Lichess’s schedule system, openly available on the site.
• Checking other players’ game histories or contacting developers are indirect, complex, and unrelated to tournament mechanics. Also player could play only one Yearly Arena so checking their games will not lead you anywhere.

If information were only available through such means and there would be no arenas that take place once a year, I would say the name always misleads. But since the tournament history is open and easily accessible, there are cases where the name doesn’t mislead, justifying «can» over «will».

4. On blaming users.
   I never claimed users are obliged to check the schedule. I only said the option exists, meaning there are scenarios where the name doesn’t mislead. This makes «can» logically more accurate than «will».

5. The main point.
   We agree the name «Annual Arena» can be misleading. But to call it deliberate deception («lies» or «intentional misrepresentation»), you need to prove ( C ) — intent. Can you provide such evidence?

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #147:

1. On «schedule» and «history».
   In English, the word «schedule» can include both upcoming and past events when referring to documentation. On Lichess, the tournament history is part of the publicly accessible schedule system. I hope this clarifies what I mean.

2. Why «can» instead of «will».
   The name «Annual Arena» can be misleading if the tournament is held twice a year and a player hasn’t seen the tournament history. But if a player knows from the schedule that it occurs twice, it won’t mislead. Logically:

( M ): misleading
( D ): deliberate deception
( C ): proven intent to mislead
D => M: true
M =>D: false
For ( D ): (M∧C) => D

3. On your argument about players’ games and developers.
   Your example doesn’t apply, as it distorts the situation:

• The tournament history is part of Lichess’s schedule system, openly available on the site.
• Checking other players’ game histories or contacting developers are indirect, complex, and unrelated to tournament mechanics. Also player could play only one Yearly Arena so checking their games will not lead you anywhere.

If information were only available through such means and there would be no arenas that take place once a year, I would say the name always misleads. But since the tournament history is open and easily accessible, there are cases where the name doesn’t mislead, justifying «can» over «will».

4. On blaming users.
   I never claimed users are obliged to check the schedule. I only said the option exists, meaning there are scenarios where the name doesn’t mislead. This makes «can» logically more accurate than «will».

5. The main point.
   We agree the name «Annual Arena» can be misleading. But to call it deliberate deception («lies» or «intentional misrepresentation»), you need to prove ( C ) — intent. Can you provide such evidence?

Even from these formulations it is clear that there are a minority of them: there are cases / there are scenarios.

The history of the arenas has little to do with the tournament being held. From the point of view of the rules, they could have become outdated, changed, as often happens in sports. Therefore, each tournament is accompanied by a description, as if it were being held for the first time. There is no such thing: well, you know the rules, you can look at the history of the arenas, if someone is not in the know.
The only thing is that someone will want to check after they have already become a victim of deception, at least once.

Most people do not need to watch this history just like that.

So what should the majority do that did not check the history of the arenas? After all, no one should do this

Does the above statement apply to them?:

The name of the arena makes the player believe in false information / deception

Let's structure this to avoid confusion and keep the discussion constructive. You are currently trying to prove two points:

1. The name "Annual Arena" is not only likely to mislead, it is a deliberate deception.
2. The name "Annual Arena" is always misleading, which is why you imply "will" is more appropriate than "can"

Point 1
Refutation: You have not proven intent, which is required to claim that the name is a deception rather than merely likely to mislead. Your reasoning also commits the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. In formal terms:
(M): misleading
(D): deliberate deception
(C): proven intent to mislead
D => M: true
M => D: false
For (D): (M ∧ C) => D
Without proving (C), your claim of deception is unsupported.

Point 2
Refutation: The fact that most people won’t check the tournament history does not change the logical truth that there are scenarios where the name does not mislead. This alone makes “can” more precise than “will.”

Additional points you raised
The tournament history is part of the scheduling system — it documents the chronology of past tournaments. This history directly shows the factual frequency of past events, which is exactly what matters here.

If the frequency changes in the future, this:

1. Does not alter the fact that the arena has been held more than once a year in the past.
2. Does not change the fact that the name may be misleading now, because it contradicts inductive evidence. We are discussing the present state, not hypothetical future states.
3. Allows us to say the name is no longer misleading only if records show the “Annual Arena” has been held once a year and there is a reason to expect the next one to follow the same pattern.
4. Without an official statement, frequency remains a statistical property requiring multiple observations or confirmation, not a fact based on a single occurrence.
5. Even if the tournament happens once in a given year, a player can still be misled into thinking “Annual” is a strict rule, when it could simply be a branding choice and the single occurrence was coincidental.

Finally, even if most players don’t check the history, that is not evidence of intent. To claim “lies” or “intentional misrepresentation,” you must prove (C) — that the misleading effect was the intended goal.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #149:

Let's structure this to avoid confusion and keep the discussion constructive. You are currently trying to prove two points:

1. The name "Annual Arena" is not only likely to mislead, it is a deliberate deception.
2. The name "Annual Arena" is always misleading, which is why you imply "will" is more appropriate than "can"

Point 1
Refutation: You have not proven intent, which is required to claim that the name is a deception rather than merely likely to mislead. Your reasoning also commits the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. In formal terms:
(M): misleading
(D): deliberate deception
(C): proven intent to mislead
D => M: true
M => D: false
For (D): (M ∧ C) => D
Without proving (C), your claim of deception is unsupported.

Point 2
Refutation: The fact that most people won’t check the tournament history does not change the logical truth that there are scenarios where the name does not mislead. This alone makes “can” more precise than “will.”

Additional points you raised
The tournament history is part of the scheduling system — it documents the chronology of past tournaments. This history directly shows the factual frequency of past events, which is exactly what matters here.

If the frequency changes in the future, this:

1. Does not alter the fact that the arena has been held more than once a year in the past.
2. Does not change the fact that the name may be misleading now, because it contradicts inductive evidence. We are discussing the present state, not hypothetical future states.
3. Allows us to say the name is no longer misleading only if records show the “Annual Arena” has been held once a year and there is a reason to expect the next one to follow the same pattern.
4. Without an official statement, frequency remains a statistical property requiring multiple observations or confirmation, not a fact based on a single occurrence.
5. Even if the tournament happens once in a given year, a player can still be misled into thinking “Annual” is a strict rule, when it could simply be a branding choice and the single occurrence was coincidental.

Finally, even if most players don’t check the history, that is not evidence of intent. To claim “lies” or “intentional misrepresentation,” you must prove (C) — that the misleading effect was the intended goal.

You claim that players are not required to check the history of arenas, they will not be guilty. So how can they not be deceived if all they can rely on is the name and description?