Can a CfJ set the time that an action most recently occurred? Otherwise greentick

I am very much opposed to the idea that somehow the handoff action was valid but the victory wasn’t. That just seems ridiculous to me.

This should be conditional on the DoV not having already enacted.

@Bucky: It shouldn’t, but it should be conditional on the rule it changes not having been repealed. I’ll fix that.

@Jason: It can, the history of actions is considered to be gamestate (otherwise things like dailies wouldn’t work).

@Clucky: This CFJ doesn’t say that at all; it upholds the handoff (even it it failed), because that’s the best way to recover, and has no opinion on whether the victory worked.

eh if the DoV is enacted, its still good to keep this around so that we don’t run into issues where if I decide to keep the rules, dead. the player named Clucky has achieved victory doesn’t turn around and apply the same scam 36 hours from now to help someone else win.

I’d just rather either keep the crossed legislator on me, or randomly set it again. Not a fan of going “X doesn’t work because you can’t actually do Y, but we’re going to fix it so you did Y even though X still doesn’t happen”

@ais but my feeling is if the handoff worked, the victory worked. so upholding the handoff without upholding the victory seems wrong.

“Set the Crossed Legislator to be the Legislator named “dead. The player named Clucky has achieved victory” or “pokes””

Which, and how does the enacting admin decide? (Those are technically different players)

I’m not convinced they are, but I’ll try to word it more clearly.

Actually, this CFJ should probably lock the player in question to one name, to clean up that ambiguity too. (I think it’s unambiguous that the rejoining failed, though.)

@dead/pokes, if you’re around: which account would you prefer to use going forwards?

I think the problem is still that this CfJ doesn’t resolve the question of the status of that player, their name, and which accounts they control, and essentially puts that decision into the hands of the enacting admin by fiat.

Have you considered letting pokes decide? Give them a rider that allows them to specify which account they’re using as their player account, unidle it of necessary, then idle the other one (and somehow put it beyond use if possible).

(And are you playing to stay unidle if the dynasty continues, or are you planning to idle again?)

Yep there we go

Oh, EVC vote, that makes more sense than me asking in the comments. I’ll edit.

why not just leave the status on me? or randomly assign it again?

why? why are you over complicating this?

there seem to be two possibly valid arguments against my DoV:

1) Pokes could not potentially not actually create a new account. So then the account that was created was invalid, and thus not a valid legislator, and thus their name could not be set using the handoff action

2) The handoff action count not be performed, because its inside the list of properties and not an actual action people can perform.

To me, either the DoV is valid or the veto list still says “The Proposal’s Author is not Clucky”

So I don’t understand all this effort to try and figure out who the Crossed Legislator should be. If DoV is valid, leave it on me and we can deal with the fallout. If DoV is invalid, leave it on me because it should be on me. No need to get these weird four state options CFJs

The complexity isn’t to figure out who the Crossed Legislator is, it’s to figure out the status of pokes’ account.

Setting the Crossed Legislator is easy.

well first off, we shouldn’t try and fix two issues with one CfJ that is just asking for extra complexity that CfJs are not designed to handle

secondly, pokes never requested to unidle. so either the join failed, or it succeeded. seems a reasonably straight forward question for its own CfJ

The extra complexity is generous; it allows pokes to regain their own account and rejoin the game without having to wait for the idle period to expire.

It doesn’t really seem like that much complexity, to be honest, so I’m not sure what the objection is.

The riders all only apply to pokes; he’s the only one who gets to vote on them. If you don’t like them, ignore them?

but pokes is not the only player who has created other accounts. I think we need to resolve that problem wholesale, and I’d rather we do that in a manner that isn’t tied to another issue.

see here: https://blognomic.com/archive/first_bullet_in_fair_play

where Cuddlebeam admits to having multiple accounts.

however we fix this, we should do it in a way that affirms cuddlebeam’s status as player throughout all the time he’s been active

Option 3. I would otherwise intend to idle this account and keep ‘pokes’ idle for the time being. I don’t think that option 3 has any effect on the idle timer for ‘pokes’, which last unidled in the last dynasty?

Idle timers only apply if you idle yourself, not if you get idled by timeout, CFJ, etc.

Anyway, this CFJ was still in edit period, so I’ve edited the text of Option 3 into the CFJ itself to make it a bit simpler.