upholding how it was run doesn’t seem right to me. unfairly gives the win to the guards.

Kevan previously ran extra spots under the intended wording despite extra spots not having positions, so I really don’t understand why we’d want to switch to hyper literal interpretations now.

Also would still be nice to allow https://blognomic.com/archive/did_someone_call_shenanigans to fully resolve and allow us to get to the bottom of what really happened before we uphold the breaking in

The first three Break-Ins were upheld by a CfJ, so any literal reading from here would regard them as valid.

The uphold in this proposal is to allow the Break-In to be unambiguously closed, given that there’s some disagreement over whether I legally completed it. The actual Success counts get updated by the reassessment action, which may or may not resolve differently.

You’re welcome to propose a further “reassess Break-In #4 outcomes as if Extra Spots only applied to specific Spots” review instead of or on top of this, if you think that a quorum would support applying the Extra Spot fix retroactively.

People are going to play the game in a way that assumes the ruleset will get interpreted in a consistent manner

Previously, the way you ran the break-ins showed you thought there was enough context to make it clear it applied to the specific agent’s route. To me, that means if we also add a clause about position there is still enough context to make it clear it also only applies to that position.

I’m planning to withhold my vote until https://blognomic.com/archive/did_someone_call_shenanigans fully resolves.

[Clucky] There’s also the higher level consistency of always interpreting the ruleset literally, which is what I was aiming for in choosing which way to jump here.

Players are also welcome to propose “don’t reassess Break-In #4 after all, revert any change made by Room Service” if they think a semi-literal reading is the best way to go.

@Kevan When its not consistent with how previous rounds were run, feels like that is an incredibly unfair way to run things

[Clucky] That you characterised the middle reading as “100% wrong” in your comments on What Happened Last Night suggested that I should pick one of the other two interpretations.