Sunday, December 06, 2009

I have cast PROUST

I have cast PROUST. At this point, anyone who is (or becomes) my partner may make a DoV.

Check the wording: “If a game action is a Timed Action, each Apprentice may spend one Time in order to take that action. Each Apprentice may perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period”

I’m interpreting that as a poorly written rule that ALLOWS us to deduct one Time every time we take a Timed action and ALLOWS us to limit ourselves to two Timed Actions in a 24-hour period… I have elected not to do so, obviously.

Here is a list of my workbench changes, for reference.

TXPORXOSX
ATXPORXOS
OATXPORXO
OOATXPORX
AOOATXPOR
UUUUTXPOR
UUUXTXPOR
AUUUXTXPO
AAUUUXTXP
AAAUUUXTX
TAAAUUUXT
STAAAUUUX
ASTAAAUUU
USTAAAUUA
OUSTAAAUU
ROUSTAAAU
PROUSTAAA

Comments

NoOneImportant:

12-06-2009 18:48:15 UTC

Note that, using my technique, ANYONE can get ‘SOUP’ more or less immediately and become my partner.

Wakukee:

12-06-2009 18:56:49 UTC

Eh… may is defined as “is permitted to,” so the rule would read “If a game action is a Timed Action, each Apprentice is permitted to spend one Time in order to take that action. Each Apprentice is permitted to perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period.” So it is arguable that Each apprentice is permitted to perform no more than 2 timed actions in any 24 hour period.

NoOneImportant:

12-06-2009 19:15:05 UTC

I can see it being read that way… but I figure mine is at least peripherally legitimate… and people seem to want the dynasty over AND like sneakiness, so…

Hix:

12-06-2009 19:25:58 UTC

In general, a scam is not valid just because one possible interpretation of a rule allows it, especially when the intended interpretation is clear.

The “sneakiness” we tend to appreciate around here is more along the lines of “Oh, that’s clever; I didn’t realize that was a consequence of the rule”, and less like “Oh, that’s not what is meant by the rule, and you know it.”

Here’s a rule that I think someone should take advantage of (Yes, it’s allowed during Hiatus) in order to undo these moves.

“if a Apprentice feels that an alteration goes against the Rules (as they were at the time of the alteration), he may simply undo the effects of that alteration. If such an undoing is disputed, a Call for Judgment shall be raised.”

NoOneImportant:

12-06-2009 19:42:48 UTC

Sure, a CfJ is the appropriate thing to do if you believe my interpretation is wrong. But, note this:

If the pacing rule had been written like this:

“In any 24-hour period, each Apprentice may perform no more than two Timed Actions.”

My interpretation would be impossible. By making the entire phrase “perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period” dependent on the ‘may’, Bucky (perhaps inadvertently) made the limitation itself something that was “permitted”.

Another better wording would have been:

“Each Apprentice shall perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period.”

Since there were two ways to word it differently that would have been unambiguous, I think it’s legitimate to use the existing ambiguity.

NoOneImportant:

12-06-2009 19:45:42 UTC

I don’t see this as any different than the “ambiguity” in the treasure map rule that allowed Purplebeard to declare Victory in the Pirate/Ninja game. In fact, that was my inspiration.. to find an existing flaw in the rules and exploit it.

Josh:

12-06-2009 20:24:36 UTC

The “sneakiness” we tend to appreciate around here is more along the lines of “Oh, that’s clever; I didn’t realize that was a consequence of the rule”, and less like “Oh, that’s not what is meant by the rule, and you know it.”

This.

Excalabur:

12-06-2009 23:14:22 UTC

I have reverted this.  :)

However, feel free to CfJ.  I think you’re on shaky ground.  The logical reading of that sentence is that one may (spend one time in order to do X) rather than (may spend one time) in order to do X.

Qwazukee:

12-06-2009 23:24:31 UTC

Just based on this sentence:

“Each Apprentice may perform no more than two Timed Actions in any 24-hour period”

it is clear that an Apprentice may perform a Timed Action 0, 1, or 2 times in a 24-hour period. It’s a funny way of phrasing a negative, but it does prevent any more than 2 timed actions.

Klisz:

12-07-2009 00:40:15 UTC

Gnomes are sneaky

Qwazukee:

12-07-2009 01:32:17 UTC

Should put that back in the Ruleset.

tecslicer:

12-07-2009 04:18:23 UTC

veto Just because.