Monday, August 15, 2011

Call for Judgment: Slip and Slide Suicide

Reaches antiquorum. Josh

Adminned at 17 Aug 2011 07:17:22 UTC

Coppro took a selective reading of the rule on Following Through. There were two ambiguities that he exploited:

* While the rule specifies that Following Through may be performed under certain circumstances, it doesn’t forbid performing it without those circumstances existing; and
* “provided that it continues in the same direction of travel as the initial shove” refers to the very first shove performed in the game, rather than the shove that resulted in the follow through taking place.

The latter only appears to be justifiable in the context of the former - if following through requires a shove then it is clear that that is the shove referred to by the term “initial”, and if it does not then it can be reasonably asserted that “initial” refers to the first shove ever performed. I find the first to be dubious, however, on the grounds that the ruleset never explicitly states that main actions can be performed *at all*, so the redacto ad absurdum approach still prevents Coppro from taking those actions.

Therefore, revert Coppro’s actions as undertaken on August 15th and add one Foul to his total.

Comments

Josh: Observer he/they

15-08-2011 12:01:27 UTC

Furthermore, coppro has asserted that the first Shove undertaken was to the right; but the first one that I can find was towards the left, by Darknight against Kevan on July 8th 22:32. Coppro, have to found one that’s older?

Kevan: he/him

15-08-2011 12:05:32 UTC

Furtherfurthermore, the Following Through Action does (so far as I can tell) cost 1AP, so Coppro’s casual “follow-through five times” should have cost him 5AP, rather than the 0AP he assumed. (It makes sense that Following Through should be a free action, as it’s meant to be a limited-criteria discount on other actions, but nowhere does it actually say that it costs 0AP.)

Kevan: he/him

15-08-2011 12:14:53 UTC

against on the specific reasons raised in this particular CfJ, though. The first issue seems fine: we have defined a Main Action which acts like any other; we have said that it can be performed when X is true; we haven’t said that it can’t be performed when X is false. The second issue seems like the only way to resolve a lack of clarity in that action.

The wording of “revert Coppro’s actions” would also undo any votes, proposals or other actions he takes today.

Josh: Observer he/they

15-08-2011 12:22:10 UTC

If we can agree that the actions were illegal, and the logical conclusion is the same either way, do the specifics really matter?

Kevan: he/him

15-08-2011 12:40:53 UTC

It’s potentially a little sketchy; if 1/3 of players thought that Coppro had broken the rules on your terms, and 1/3 thought he had broken them on my terms (and both 1/3rds completely disagreed with the other argument), then that’s two failed CfJs, not one successful one.

I find “revert Coppro’s actions as undertaken on August 15th” to be a problematic resolution, though, as it also erases the Fweep he raised (against you) this morning, and his vote on Nomic Interactionism.

Prince Anduril:

15-08-2011 13:23:11 UTC

against On Kevan’s last point.

However, he should definitely be given one foul, because when he attempted to follow through the second time in a row, he violated the condition of following through, in that he had “taken a Main Action (of following through) since the shove took place”

scshunt:

15-08-2011 13:31:07 UTC

I disagree completely with Josh’s analysis, as it is in fact the case that the action cannot be performed because nothing authorizes Main Actions, then this dynasty is actually stuck back in Hicktown with us all standing around like idiots at the edge of the Arena, unable to move, and the players without Fouls are winning.

Kevan’s analysis, which he found only after I perpetrated the scam, is a more convincing one, and I’m on the fence as to whether it’s correct or not. Given the haphazard way BlogNomic defines actions, it’s not at all clear whether or not “When a Gladiator Follows Through” is a consequence of following through, or defining the fundamental nature of the action.

I disagree with Prince Anduril’s analysis as well, as the whole first sentence of the follow-through action only permits - it does not forbid - so I can’t possibly have violated it.

Kevan: he/him

15-08-2011 13:32:25 UTC

[Anduril] The point is whether it’s possible to ignore the entire “If a Gladiator has been shoved since the last Turn Boundary, and has not died or taken a Main Action since the shove took place, then he may Follow Through as his next Main Action.” sentence and perform the action anyway. Coppro hadn’t been shoved since the last Turn Boundary either.

scshunt:

15-08-2011 13:34:56 UTC

(I also issue the usual caution against interpreting things the way you want to just because someone scammed them; I am trying hard to do the opposite and make sure I give a fair perspective to others’ analyses of my scam)

scshunt:

15-08-2011 13:35:24 UTC

oh and against since I forgot

Blacky:

15-08-2011 18:39:22 UTC

against per PA

Prince Anduril:

15-08-2011 21:04:55 UTC

Indeed it looks like there is an ambiguity as to what the word “When” means in the context of action taking and consequences.

There are 2 ways of interpreting the “When”:

Either: “During the time which a Gladiator follows through…”
Or: “After a Gladiator follows through…”

If it is defined as “After” then you have to spend your APs *first* (and then you get to step, or shove, for nothing) - which in the context of this rule makes a nonsense of it (and also coppro’s actions illegal).

If it defined as “During the time which” then the actions do indeed cost nothing, which was well noticed by coppro. However, the rules also make no distinction between illegal and legal shoves, so the first (albeit illegal) shove was made by mideg on 07/07 at 13:44. In fact, in rule 3.2 where it says:

“one GNDT update may contain one or more actions, or one action may be split over multiple GNDT updates, as long as it’s clear what is happening and the actions are otherwise legal.”

which implies that illegal actions are still actions. If this is the case then the initial shove was South West, and thus even the second sentence was violated by coppro, and thus he should still get a foul.

Ely:

15-08-2011 21:07:04 UTC

against per coppro.

Josh: Observer he/they

17-08-2011 14:17:07 UTC

against to clear