This doesn’t work due to “Let’s just assume the dice are fair” failing – the dice roll is not possible to legally make.

Don’t think I agree with that premise - but it would seem to be a matter for a separate proposal rather than something that can be fixed within the scope of this one.

@Josh: You used that premise to cancel out what would otherwise have been a valid win in Josh XXIV, and the relevant parts of the ruleset haven’t changed since.

I agree that pass-and-fix is probably possible here, but I wanted to flag up the issue before people try to take actions based on it.

with the understanding that this won’t work until the core rules are fixed.

@ais Not true; you were trying to scam a win on the basis that the term “heuristic” was inappropriate for the context it was used, I considered that even trace inaccuracies in the roller made the term ‘heuristic’ appropriate. Sad to say that scams have a higher bar than conventional play; if you’re going to play games with words then you have to accept that word games will be played in response.

@Josh: I’m pretty sure the conclusion reached in that thread (maybe not by you, but by the playerbase in general) was that no attempt to perform the victory roll (even in a conventional way) would have succeeded, and that this was a consequence of the dice roller inaccuracies. If the dice roller had been correct, a) the action would have been properly performable and b) your argument that a dice roll is a “heuristic” would have failed – so the win would have been valid.

I don’t believe in the premise that buggy rules function correctly in regular gameplay, but don’t function in the presence of scams – they’re buggy regardless, and actions which would rely on the rule being correct fail regardless of whether or not anyone is actively trying to scam it. (The primary difference is that players are more likely to vote through an uphold CFJ in the case where nobody was attempting a scam. That doesn’t mean that you can just ignore the bugs, though.)

@ais “I don’t believe in the premise that buggy rules function correctly in regular gameplay, but don’t function in the presence of scams” - this may be a fundamental philosophical disagreement, then, as I find that scams - particularly a scam what requires three dictionary definitions to support it, as your heuristic attempt did - are often attempts to will meaning into existence in the face of plain English readings, and onky succeed when they are sufficiently persuasive to stick. A mistake that a lot of people seem to make with nomic is believing that language has fixed meanings, or can be pinned down as if it were computer code, rather than being something that is argued over and whose meaning is wholly mutable; in short, there’s no such thing as ‘buggy rules’, only movable interpretations. For me, the issue with ‘heuristic’ was that the interpretation being asserted by the same didn’t deliver the outcome it needed to in order for the scam to work, but for conventional play it more than suffices.

(Apologies for typos; my body is currently performing the function of wrestling ring for two hyped-up cats.)

So if I’m reading this right, the actual distance between two cities doesn’t matter? Its just always randomly between 2 and 5 days?

Doesn’t make too much sense to me. That also introduces a ton of variance.

@Clucky It’s the second proposal of the dynasty; I’m not aiming for perfect, I’m aiming for iteratable.