Thursday, April 20, 2023

Call for Judgment: City Records Audit

Fewer than a quorum not voting AGAINST. Failed 1 vote to 5 by Kevan.

Adminned at 22 Apr 2023 10:48:15 UTC

In the rule “The Building”, replace this text:

If no Build action has occurred in the previous 48 hours

with this text:

If the Building is not Collapsed, but neither a Build action nor a Move On action has occurred in the previous 48 hours

Set the Building Number to 3.

Set Josh’s Safety Checks to the average of the three highest Safety Checks among the other Engineers at the time of this enactment.

The Building itself doesn’t need to be reset because it was intended to allow a Move On after 48 hours of no Builds. That 1 instance of Move On and the subsequent Builds were within expectations. Instead, this resets the Building Number to what it should have been had only 1 Move On occurred, without needing to rewind a bunch of Wiki edits.

By setting Josh’s Safety Checks to be among the top 3, it recognizes his achievement and effort in the scam without unduly penalizing him, while also preserving the value of Safety Checks for everyone else.


Taiga: he/him

20-04-2023 13:30:29 UTC

Surely we consider all side effects of the Moving Ons, including the Quarry as well.

Also, when we eventually get to Building #7388241, give back Josh the one extra Safety Check he gained from the Inspection. He kinda just lost that Safety Check without compensation.

Brendan: he/him

20-04-2023 13:41:45 UTC

Not a fan of this. The move was legal and there are other ways forward.

Josh: he/they

20-04-2023 13:59:15 UTC

Yeah, the flat “pretend it didn’t happen” approach is kind of odious. Should we knock back the safety checks of other leading players in the dynasty as well? I understand that there have been other scams on the way here; am I just being singled out because I did the scam better?

It is also against the interests of many players besides me. Overlook the question of the safety checks and the main thing I lose here is a time advantage: it would take other players days to get to a position where they could catch up, 7 players so 14 days to get the full set. But it’s not just me who loses that; Brendan has the first Review Board so he loses 12 days relative to the pack. The person after Brendan loses 10, the next person 8… Ultimately this approach really only benefits whoever would be the last person in the line.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

20-04-2023 14:32:47 UTC

Agreed, the move was legal. This is simply one of many possible ways to move the game forward. I recognize that there are others.

I was trying to address this as a “fix the rules and gamestate to As-Intended vs As-Written for this specific scam”. Since Josh was the only one to use the scam specifically addressed in this CfJ, it unfortunately affects him. I’m not attempting to address any other scam, so bringing those up seems unnecessary here. Those can be left for other Proposals if anyone feels they need to be addressed. I’m not going to boil the ocean by addressing every single thing in one CfJ.

I’m open to another suggestions for the distribution of Safety Checks if that’s the real sticking point. Make a suggestion if you have one. I’m ok with whatever everyone agrees would be fair.

Kevan: he/him

20-04-2023 16:00:11 UTC

I wouldn’t have said this CfJ was pretending the scam didn’t happen. It’s giving Josh around 30 Safety Checks - two solid Inspections - that they didn’t have before. Moving from last place to second place seems a decent outcome for a backseat scam.

If I’m reading it correctly, the outcome of the scam is that Specialisations now cost seven million Safety Checks, and that Josh alone can afford one Specialisation change at the cost of all of their Safety Checks. And that anyone else can get seven million Safety Checks in 48 hours if a quorum agree to it. We can either hyperdeflate the big numbers to get Specialisations available to everyone again, or we can play on designing rules and ultimately a victory condition that take this massive gravity distortion into account (which isn’t difficult, it will just be a bit weird).

Josh: he/they

20-04-2023 17:13:30 UTC


Lulu: she/her

20-04-2023 17:22:57 UTC


Brendan: he/him

20-04-2023 19:14:45 UTC

Either Josh has won, or the rest of us have not yet lost.  against in favor of my reproposal of JD’s Risk mechanic.

Kevan: he/him

21-04-2023 07:06:49 UTC

against I’m happy to let the fool’s gold stand.

Josh: he/they

21-04-2023 07:14:06 UTC

When you put it that way, Kevan, it sounds like “fool” is an adjective amending the owner of the gold rather than the gold itself, that was unintentional right? 👀

Josh: he/they

21-04-2023 08:47:24 UTC






jjm3x3: he/him

21-04-2023 22:57:47 UTC

It is a bit wonky, but I do think we are fine with where we are.  against