Friday, August 05, 2011

Fweep: Too Many Cups

This Fweep is now closed; it failed to reach “more Gladiators voted AGAINST the Foul Post than FOR it”, so the Foul stands.

Adminned at 07 Aug 2011 05:18:58 UTC

Coppro unidled and gave himself the Clingboom Cup, which he was carrying when he idled four days ago. As I understand it, this gamestate update is illegal, since the Cup Weapon disappeared from play when he idled - “When a Gladiator becomes idle, he also becomes Resting.” and “When a Gladiator stops Fighting and begins Resting, they lose any Weapons they were carrying.”, so when Coppro elected to idle himself out, he became Resting and the Cup was removed from his possession.

(His action also contradicts “Only one Gladiator may hold The ClingBoom Cup at any time” in Rule 2.14.)

Comments

scshunt:

06-08-2011 09:32:16 UTC

Here’s the scam:

“When a Gladiator is de-idled, if they went idle in the same dynasty, their personal gamestate retains the values it had immediately prior to their going Idle, if they are still valid.” At no time was I not idle and also not holding the Cup, but the rule about Gladiators becoming Resting made me Resting without affecting that state. The rule about losing Weapons does not apply as I was never a Gladiator (who must not have been idle per rule 1.2) who stopped Fighting and became Resting. At best, I was a Gladiator who stopped Fighting and became <SIGSEGV: NO STATUS>, but even that is debateable.

As for multiple cups, it says “Only one Gladiator may hold The ClingBoom Cup at any time,” sure. That only applies to one instance, though (consider if you replace “The ClingBoom Cup” with, say, “Harpoon”. It’s redundant, but correct that only one Gladiator may hold a given Harpoon). Nowhere does the ruleset say that there can only be one instance of the weapon called “The ClingBoom Cup”. In fact, “... [the Gladiator] gains an Instance of The ClingBoom Cup,” implying there can be multiple instances. As well, The ClingBoom Cup is a singleton item in a list that clearly is introduced with “These are some other Weapons:”. Thus there is no issue with Kevan and I each holding our own Cups.

Kevan: he/him

06-08-2011 09:52:10 UTC

Hm, haven’t got time to pick through this in detail, but I’d note that when I fixed the loophole you were studiously not quite fixing, it had an explicit one-off effect of removing Weapons from “idle Gladiators”. I’m not sure you can “retain” the gamestate property of having the Clingboom Cup when you lost that property during the time you were idle.

scshunt:

06-08-2011 10:41:30 UTC

I adminned that proposal while still active.

Kevan: he/him

06-08-2011 11:01:56 UTC

Ah, okay. In which case you lost the Cup when you idled (“When a Gladiator becomes idle, he also becomes Resting [and loses] any Weapons they were carrying.”), so even though you still had the Cup “immediately prior to [your] going Idle”, you did lose it, and I wouldn’t say that reassigning it to yourself was “retaining” it. If the unidling rule said “their personal gamestate is set to the values”, then sure, but you can’t “retain” something you explicitly lost.

scshunt:

06-08-2011 11:19:50 UTC

Where does it say that idling Gladiators lose their weapons?

Kevan: he/him

06-08-2011 11:28:16 UTC

“When a Gladiator becomes idle, he also becomes Resting.” plus “When a Gladiator stops Fighting and begins Resting, they lose any Weapons they were carrying.”

ais523:

06-08-2011 19:03:25 UTC

But if they just became idle, then they aren’t Gladiators (except in a few core rules), so the second of those rules can’t trigger.

Kevan: he/him

06-08-2011 19:07:22 UTC

Given that they’re both worded as “when X happens, Y also happens”, I’d assume that all three changes happened simultaneously.

ais523:

06-08-2011 20:20:03 UTC

But the conditions are worded differently. We have when someone becomes X, Y happens; when Y happens to someone who isn’t X, Z happens. I don’t see how the timing can work there for someone to become Z due to becoming X.

Kevan: he/him

06-08-2011 20:57:29 UTC

Hmm, I’d have compressed it as “When a Gladiator becomes idle, he actually becomes idle-and-resting at that instant. When a Gladiator becomes idle-and-resting, he actually becomes idle-and-resting-and-weaponless at that instant.”

The “when someone becomes X” condition either means “during that instant of change” (in which case I think the above compression is fine), or “as a result of that change happening” (in which case we can’t even say “when a Gladiator becomes idle, he also becomes Resting”, because idle Gladiators don’t have a Fighting/Resting stance).

Ely:

06-08-2011 21:00:50 UTC

for But for another reason.
I agree with ais and coppro on the XYZ thing.
But their coppro’s reading of “Only one Gladiator may hold The ClingBoom Cup at any time” is ludricous.
So, coppro’s unidling would put the gamestate in an illegal situation, and is thus illegal.
So coppro may not unidle.
Will CfJ.

ais523:

06-08-2011 21:45:42 UTC

This reminds me of what’s so troubling about BlogNomic’s precedence rule; all the times it actually comes up, I have no idea how the issue’s meant to be resolved, because the scopes of the two rules have nothing to do with each other.

scshunt:

07-08-2011 04:31:33 UTC

against

Josh: Observer he/they

07-08-2011 07:13:35 UTC

for