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

@Italiya said in #150:

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?
Why do you keep making logical assumptions? That players aren’t obliged to check the tournament history doesn’t mean they lack the option to do so. Since this option exists, it’s logically correct to say «can» instead of «will», as I did.

Players may be misled, but that doesn’t mean they’re deceived. To claim «lies», «deception», or «intentional misrepresentation», you must prove (( C ))—that misleading was Lichess’s goal. You’ve provided no evidence of this.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #151:

Why do you keep making logical assumptions? That players aren’t obliged to check the tournament history doesn’t mean they lack the option to do so. Since this option exists, it’s logically correct to say «can» instead of «will», as I did.

Players may be misled, but that doesn’t mean they’re deceived. To claim «lies», «deception», or «intentional misrepresentation», you must prove (( C ))—that misleading was Lichess’s goal. You’ve provided no evidence of this.

Because you said that you don't shift responsibility to the players. And if it's not stated anywhere that they should do it - they have the right not to do it. It doesn't matter whether there is such a possibility or not.
Specifically for such full participants, the title and description are distorting the facts / deception?

@Italiya said in #152:

It doesn't matter whether there is such a possibility or not.
«They have the right» and «they can» are different concepts. For my statement to hold, the possibility of checking the tournament history must exist, which it does on Lichess. This makes «can» logically more accurate than «will», as «will» implies that they can't, which isn’t true. You acknowledged that players can check the history.

@Italiya said in #152:

Specifically for such full participants, the title and description are distorting the facts / deception?
You’re again conflating concepts. The name doesn’t distort facts — it reflects the arena’s branding and doesn’t change the fact that it’s held twice a year. It may mislead based on past patterns, but that’s not the same as distorting facts. To claim «lies», «deception», or «intentional misrepresentation», you must prove (( C ))—that misleading was Lichess’s goal. You’ve shown no evidence of intent.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #153:

«They have the right» and «they can» are different concepts. For my statement to hold, the possibility of checking the tournament history must exist, which it does on Lichess. This makes «can» logically more accurate than «will», as «will» implies that they can't, which isn’t true. You acknowledged that players can check the history.

You’re again conflating concepts. The name doesn’t distort facts — it reflects the arena’s branding and doesn’t change the fact that it’s held twice a year. It may mislead based on past patterns, but that’s not the same as distorting facts. To claim «lies», «deception», or «intentional misrepresentation», you must prove (( C ))—that misleading was Lichess’s goal. You’ve shown no evidence of intent.

<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.>

You admit that it is possible to catch someone in deliberate deception without a sincere confession.
Moreover, you say that players are not obliged to find out information in tournament histories.
So are they guilty or not guilty if they did not look?

@Italiya said in #154:

You admit that it is possible to catch someone in deliberate deception without a sincere confession.
Maybe we should switch to Russian? It would help avoid misunderstandings, since you most likely do not read the original message in English and this leads to a misunderstanding of what is written. If you do this intentionally, then this is already an avoidance of constructive discussion, which is not welcome here.
I clearly wrote that I would use "will" in the hypothetical case if the information was not available and there were no arenas held once a year. But this doesn’t imply «deliberate deception» (( D )). That statement means the name would always mislead (( M )) under those conditions. But claiming deception requires proof of intent (( C )). For example, selling square tables as «Round Table» may always mislead but isn’t deception without proof of intent.

@Italiya said in #154:

So are they guilty or not guilty if they did not look?
How is this relevant to my argument? I never claimed players are guilty for not checking the tournament history. I said the option exists, making «can» logically correct over «will», as «will» implies the name always misleads, which isn’t true since the history is available.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #155:

Maybe we should switch to Russian? It would help avoid misunderstandings, since you most likely do not read the original message in English and this leads to a misunderstanding of what is written. If you do this intentionally, then this is already an avoidance of constructive discussion, which is not welcome here.
I clearly wrote that I would use "will" in the hypothetical case if the information was not available and there were no arenas held once a year. But this doesn’t imply «deliberate deception» (( D )). That statement means the name would always mislead (( M )) under those conditions. But claiming deception requires proof of intent (( C )). For example, selling square tables as «Round Table» may always mislead but isn’t deception without proof of intent.

How is this relevant to my argument? I never claimed players are guilty for not checking the tournament history. I said the option exists, making «can» logically correct over «will», as «will» implies the name always misleads, which isn’t true since the history is available.

For players who don't watch arena history, there is no such option, but they have the right to do so according to your own statements.
Then they only see a false name that distorts the facts / deception .

@Italiya said in #156:

For players who don't watch arena history, there is no such option
This is logically incorrect. The option to check the tournament history exists on Lichess, even if some players don’t use it. This makes «can» logically correct over «will», as «will» implies no option exists for anyone. For example, if you make tea and don’t add sugar (e.g., because it’s hard to find), it doesn’t mean the option isn’t available.

I’ve already explained why the name isn’t a distortion of facts or deception. It may mislead ( M ), but claiming «deception» ( D ) requires proof of intent ( C ). To refute my argument, you need to address why it’s wrong, not just repeat your claim. Repeating without engaging doesn’t contribute to a constructive discussion.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #157:

This is logically incorrect. The option to check the tournament history exists on Lichess, even if some players don’t use it. This makes «can» logically correct over «will», as «will» implies no option exists for anyone. For example, if you make tea and don’t add sugar (e.g., because it’s hard to find), it doesn’t mean the option isn’t available.

I’ve already explained why the name isn’t a distortion of facts or deception. It may mislead ( M ), but claiming «deception» ( D ) requires proof of intent ( C ). To refute my argument, you need to address why it’s wrong, not just repeat your claim. Repeating without engaging doesn’t contribute to a constructive discussion.

The problem is that you can't understand the definition

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

In our case, the title distorts the facts. The only thing that needs to be proven is that it was done intentionally. And it has been proven.
There may be several reasons why they did it. You yourself have suggested more than one option.
It is not necessary to obtain a sincere confession from those who did it.

The essence of deception is to not talk about it: yes, I want to deceive you.
But this does not mean that it is impossible to prove.

You also do not understand that the difference between those who watched the story of the arena and those who did not is only that some found out about the deception, and others did not.
But deception does not become truth after it is found out.
There is an expression: everything secret becomes obvious. But I personally have not come across the expression: deception becomes truth.

@Italiya said in #158:

The problem is that you can't understand the definition
A loud statement, but nothing in your message proves that I cannot understand the definition. Moreover, the formalization of the definition and your statements proves the opposite. Therefore, this claim is unfounded.

1. On proving intent.
   You are again mixing up two different assertions:
   M: the title does not match the facts and can be misleading;
   C: there is proven intent to mislead.

According to your own quote:
"Deception is an intentional act intended to cause another person to believe false information."
Note this part of the definition:
"intentional act intended to cause"
The definition does not end with “intentional act.” Proving that an act was intentional is not enough to call it deception. According to the definition, it is necessary to prove the intent to mislead.

From this it follows:
D=>(M∧C)
The reverse (M) => D does not work without proven C

This means you are making the following logical error: you expand the scope of the concept by removing an important condition.

Illustration of your error:
There is a statement: “All people who touch their head to adjust a wig have no hair.”
You claim: “To prove that a person has no hair, it is enough to see them touching their head.”

Let:
P(x) — “x touches their head to adjust a wig”
Q(x) — “x has no hair”
The correct logical form is: ∀x(P(x) => Q(x))
But you are making the substitution: ∀x(Q(x) => P(x))
This is the converse error (also known as affirming the consequent). You reverse the logical dependency, which makes the statement false.

Conclusion: the problem is that you misunderstood the definition, not me.

2. Why your examples are not proof.
   The fact that I mentioned several possible reasons means they are hypotheses. Hypothesis ≠ proof. Without specific facts confirming the intent to mislead, C is not proven.

3. About “can” vs. “will.”
   I never said that deception “becomes truth,” nor that the fact that a name can mislead automatically proves deception. I said that there are cases where the title does not mislead (for example, if a person has seen the tournament history). This is the logical basis for using can instead of will.

4. The essence.
   If you claim that intent has been proven, present facts that clearly show that Lichess’s goal was specifically to make users believe a falsehood, and not some other goal — examples of which I have given. Without this, your thesis remains an unproven assertion.

@Jean_Gunfighter said in #159:

A loud statement, but nothing in your message proves that I cannot understand the definition. Moreover, the formalization of the definition and your statements proves the opposite. Therefore, this claim is unfounded.

1. On proving intent.
   You are again mixing up two different assertions:
   M: the title does not match the facts and can be misleading;
   C: there is proven intent to mislead.

According to your own quote:
"Deception is an intentional act intended to cause another person to believe false information."
Note this part of the definition:
"intentional act intended to cause"
The definition does not end with “intentional act.” Proving that an act was intentional is not enough to call it deception. According to the definition, it is necessary to prove the intent to mislead.

From this it follows:
D=>(M∧C)
The reverse (M) => D does not work without proven C

This means you are making the following logical error: you expand the scope of the concept by removing an important condition.

Illustration of your error:
There is a statement: “All people who touch their head to adjust a wig have no hair.”
You claim: “To prove that a person has no hair, it is enough to see them touching their head.”

Let:
P(x) — “x touches their head to adjust a wig”
Q(x) — “x has no hair”
The correct logical form is: ∀x(P(x) => Q(x))
But you are making the substitution: ∀x(Q(x) => P(x))
This is the converse error (also known as affirming the consequent). You reverse the logical dependency, which makes the statement false.

Conclusion: the problem is that you misunderstood the definition, not me.

2. Why your examples are not proof.
   The fact that I mentioned several possible reasons means they are hypotheses. Hypothesis ≠ proof. Without specific facts confirming the intent to mislead, C is not proven.

3. About “can” vs. “will.”
   I never said that deception “becomes truth,” nor that the fact that a name can mislead automatically proves deception. I said that there are cases where the title does not mislead (for example, if a person has seen the tournament history). This is the logical basis for using can instead of will.

4. The essence.
   If you claim that intent has been proven, present facts that clearly show that Lichess’s goal was specifically to make users believe a falsehood, and not some other goal — examples of which I have given. Without this, your thesis remains an unproven assertion.

You wrote that if it were not for the possibility to view the history of the arenas, then it could be called deliberate misleading.

And what has changed? Let's assume that the history cannot be viewed. And how will you prove what intentions were pursued?
However, in this case, you already agree that this is a deception.

But what changes globally? Has the name suddenly become a deception?