Saturday, July 31, 2021

Call for Judgment: [Appendix] Cleaning up atomic fallout

Timed out and failed, 3-7. Josh

Adminned at 02 Aug 2021 10:19:44 UTC

Uphold Josh’s random selection of Jumble as the winner of this dynasty, even if Josh couldn’t legally have made the roll to decide a winner.

In “Atomic Actions”, change

When a Vampire Lord performs an Atomic Action, they must complete all its steps; they must complete them in order; and they may not take any other dynastic action, or achieve victory, until all the steps are complete.


When a Vampire Lord performs an Atomic Action, they must complete all its steps; they must complete them in order; and they may not take any other dynastic action, or achieve victory, until either all the steps are complete, or three hours have passed since the start of the action.

With the rules as currently written, if you mess up an atomic action, you can’t perform dynastic actions again ever until the original atomic action is either reverted (causing it to never have happened) or correctly fixed. (There’s a three-hour safety clause in the “you can’t do two dynastic actions at once” rule but not in this one.)

It seems very likely that Josh messed up at least one atomic action this dynasty in a way that wasn’t corrected – technically that means that Josh can’t perform dynastic actions, a status that lasts into future dynasties. This CFJ is primarily designed to unlock that and allow Josh to act again.

(And although this means that Jumble’s win is technically illegal, as Josh couldn’t have made the die roll, I think we should uphold it as having happened anyway, as it obeyed the spirit of the rules and it was a fair way to determine a winner.)


lemon: she/her

31-07-2021 10:40:33 UTC

3 hours seems too short, but otherwise this checks out!


31-07-2021 10:45:13 UTC

It matches up to the 3 hour lockout on performing two actions simultaneously (that’s in the rules already).

We could make it longer if you think that’s a better idea, but in that case, we should probably change the lockout for two simultaneous non-atomic actions to match.


31-07-2021 10:52:35 UTC

Note that intentionally stalling for three hours to dodge the lockout would almost certainly be considered a Fair Play violation, so this is only likely to matter in cases of accidental breakage.

lemon: she/her

31-07-2021 12:09:33 UTC

well shucks, good points!!

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 14:20:12 UTC

Even if you don’t intentionally stall, allowing atomic actions to be uncompleted doesn’t seem like the right solution to the problem. (as you have one of two scenarios: the person believes the atomic action to be complete, and now you need to update the gamestate to show it wasn’t completed at all; or someone is in the middle of an atomic action that got delayed for some reasonable reason, and the might as well do it over)


31-07-2021 14:34:24 UTC

This is about not creating ongoing breakage that causes issues in the future if one somehow does end up uncompleted. Several of the Expeditions were never correctly completed, for example, because Josh did the steps out of order (something that’s specifically against the atomic actions rules), and it’s unclear what the correct fix to that is – maybe reverting and repeating the steps that were done out of order, but that would have lead to duplicate blog posts.

It makes sense to be able to just carry on from the “good enough” gamestate we get after the not-quite-properly-completed Enter the Crypt actions, without having to say “Josh doesn’t get to play BlogNomic ever again because he didn’t finish the actions properly” as a consequence.

Josh: he/they

31-07-2021 14:35:11 UTC

Won’t the DoV-upholding deal with the proximate issue?


31-07-2021 14:46:10 UTC

I don’t think so? Upholding actions has nothing to do with whether you’re currently in the middle of one or not. (If you’re in the middle of an action, then the completion of the action wasn’t something that lead up to the victory, because it didn’t happen at all.)

It makes the first line of the CFJ redundant, but won’t unlock your ability to actually do things.

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 14:51:38 UTC

the problem is, if you allow old atomic actions to be completed you run into issues where they could still in theory be completed.

I think it would be better to clarify that if steps of an atomic action are done incorrectly, the action was still “completed”

Kevan: City he/him

31-07-2021 17:52:23 UTC

Doesn’t the existing “excluding any actions which have been ongoing for more than three hours” clause already cover this, given that atomic actions are actions?

It would still block victory, though.

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 18:21:37 UTC

@Kevan I don’t think so. The atomic action lowers the scope.

Kevan: City he/him

31-07-2021 18:31:10 UTC

for True.

Josh: he/they

31-07-2021 18:38:58 UTC

against I’m not a fan of the 3-hour timeout and have mixed feelings about whether this is necessary; I think failure to complete an atomic should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis without there being a blanket “out” which might backfire in the future.

Clucky: he/him

31-07-2021 19:24:16 UTC



31-07-2021 22:20:18 UTC


lemon: she/her

01-08-2021 01:08:08 UTC


Chiiika: she/her

01-08-2021 16:14:38 UTC

against per Josh

Janet: she/her

01-08-2021 16:53:51 UTC


Darknight: he/him

01-08-2021 19:37:55 UTC


Raven1207: he/they

02-08-2021 00:11:52 UTC