Sunday, February 20, 2022

Call for Judgment: Boardom

Makes no changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset. Josh

Adminned at 21 Feb 2022 18:06:23 UTC

Brendan set up the new round/game of tic tac toe incorrectly; it should be 6x6 rather than 7x7.

The rules on fixing AAs are a bit of a mess; the rule Atomic Actions says “If one or more steps of an Atomic Action were done incorrectly, the Player must redo the Atomic Action; for that purpose, the Player uses any legal steps that have already been completed in the illegal Atomic Action and only redoes the illegal ones” - which suggests that only Brendan can fix it. However, representations of the gamestate says “Alter the representation to match what they believe to be the correct application of an incorrectly-applied alteration. This may include completing incomplete actions on behalf of the original Player, if doing so would not require the correcting Player to make any decisions on behalf of the original Player”. Priority between the two clauses is a little unclear - arguably Brendan’s action isn’t incomplete, it’s incorrect. All of that could use fixing.

This isn’t going to fix anything, though; this just gets the game moving again.

Uphold Brendan’s reset action performed at 03:23, 20 February 2022, and assert that that action has been correctly completed; if Brendan has otherwise completed that action since the posting of this CfJ, then carry out no further action as in this enactment. Uphold my correction of that reset action, performed on 10:13, 20 February 2022, and any subsequent, otherwise legal play actions on that Grid. Uphold Clucky’s move on 07:44, 20 February 2022‎. This CfJ explicitly does not uphold my action of 07:56, 20 February 2022‎, which is to be resolved under a separate votable matter.

Comments

Lulu: she/her

20-02-2022 13:52:59 UTC

for

Brendan: he/him

20-02-2022 15:03:23 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

20-02-2022 15:03:55 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2022 15:38:45 UTC

Brendan has completed the Atomic so this no longer has any effect.  against

Lulu: she/her

20-02-2022 16:40:40 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

20-02-2022 17:16:31 UTC

> “Brendan has completed the Atomic so this no longer has any effect.”

seems to clearly still be an effect to this CfJ given your making a play on C3, which if this CfJ were to pass would confirm still has my symbol (or at least had my symbol as of the time you moved on C3)

for

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2022 17:21:09 UTC

I’m not sure that it does confirm that; “if Brendan has otherwise completed that action since the posting of this CfJ, then carry out no further action as in this enactment” comes before anything is said about your move.

Clucky: he/him

20-02-2022 17:25:59 UTC

> Uphold Brendan’s reset action performed at 03:23, 20 February 2022, and assert that that action has been correctly completed

The action is performed when it is completed. So if it was performed at 03:23 then it was completed at 03:23.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2022 17:30:51 UTC

Then this CfJ does nothing about the legality of your move, pass or fail; it retains the exact same legality on the basis that Brendan corrected his incorrect step of his otherwise completed atomic action.

Of course, you having then subsequently re-blanked the board obliviates the discussion either way.

Clucky: he/him

20-02-2022 17:36:59 UTC

It does, however, confirm that Brendan made his move at 03:23, 20 February 2022

If it passes, I can safely say my symbol is at C3. If it fails, we probably need another CfJ to resolve the issue.

Hence why I just blanked the board not worth the energy trying to throw up another CfJ

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2022 17:41:03 UTC

That doesn’t need confirming; the wiki logs confirm that Brendan made his move at 03:23, 20 February 2022. And you can’t say that your symbol is at C3 if this passes, as you put it there at 07:44 and then reset the board at 17:14, which sets each cell on the board to blank; this CfJ does nothing to affect that.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2022 17:45:21 UTC

I feel like I’m missing something here…

Clucky: he/him

20-02-2022 17:50:22 UTC

Right. Board is reset, that way it doesn’t actually matter what symbol was in C3 when I reset the board. I can just be like “lol board is empty again” rather than needing to throw up another CfJ.

Josh: Observer he/they

20-02-2022 17:53:09 UTC

But then why even change your vote on this? None of it matters!

TyGuy6:

20-02-2022 22:48:40 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

21-02-2022 00:09:00 UTC

That is an excellent question Josh.

If none of it matters, why *did* you change your vote on this?

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2022 07:18:34 UTC

Ah, you’re just being antagonistic, okay.

Brendan: he/him

21-02-2022 16:21:19 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

21-02-2022 16:56:48 UTC

How am I the one being antagonist when you’re accusing me of doing shit that a) I didn’t do and b) you did do?

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2022 17:16:32 UTC

I’m not accusing of anything, Clucky, I’m trying to work out what’s going on. The reason why you’re being antagonistic is the aggro response to what is, in this thread, mild questioning. I genuinely don’t know what I’m missing, so I’m asking questions to figure it out.

Clucky: he/him

21-02-2022 17:30:11 UTC

Josh: you’re just being antagonistic

Me: How am I the one being antagonist?

Josh: I’m not accusing of anything

lol

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2022 17:35:15 UTC

Ah, so by “doing shit that a) [you] didn’t do and b) did do” you’re referring to being antagonistic?

For the record, I try to keep our disagreements off the blog and to discord; it doesn’t seem good for the game to have ugly tension in blog comments. That energy was what forced ais out of the game, if you’ll recall. So for what it’s worth, I apologise if you feel like I’ve antagonised you in this thread; I was just trying to understand your motivation for your vote, and I interpreted your comment of 00:09:00 as a provocation. If you insist that it wasn’t then I accept that and believe you.

So back to the initial question; do you meaningfully benefit from this passing? Because I can’t see how it affects gamestate any more (an in fact would suspect that it can be straightforwardly failed on that basis).

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2022 17:35:51 UTC

Oh, oops:

That is a square-brackets I after the b) in the comment above, for the record.

Clucky: he/him

21-02-2022 17:59:24 UTC

No. I’m referring to changing votes on this CfJ

I did not change my vote on this CfJ. Yet you said you said “why even change your vote on this?”. Meanwhile, you *did* change your vote on this.

So shouldn’t you be asking yourself why you changed your vote? And aren’t you implying that you had something meaningful to gain by changing your vote (otherwise why change it)?

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2022 18:04:24 UTC

Oh, I think it’s good practice to vote against votable matters that are apparently inert, just in case.

I am confused, though, as you seem to be bipping around; when you say I’m “accusing [you] of doing shit”, which thing are you referring to, exactly?  Because I didn’t really ‘accuse’ you of changing your vote; I assumed that you had without checking, for which, again, I apologise, but I don’t think it came with any real heat or venom, so I’m surprised that it’s provoked this intense of a reaction from you.

Josh: Observer he/they

21-02-2022 18:05:28 UTC

But I don’t see that this conversation is going anywhere useful, so I suppose I’ll close it on the grounds that it “specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate-tracking entities,” under the status quo.