What sentence are you performing that action based on, and how does it read with gibberish ignored?

Also, I don’t think defaulting works like that – the result of a roll isn’t a variable.

(I’m wondering if this is an attempt to discourage our team from performing actions due to gamestate uncertainty – if I perform actions of my own, I might have to deal with it by temporarily reverting the tracker so that I can demonstrate the changes I’m applying on the page itself.)

“If a rule defines an action as a Heist Action, a Participant (the “performer”) can attempt to perform that action by, in a single Dice Roller comment, specifying the action they want to attempt, indicating any changes that would occur to ruletext as a consequence, and rolling ___.

If any of the following situations occurred in the previous X hours before that attempt, where X is the result of that attempt’s ___ roll: “

Given that the rule mentions rolling in the dice roller, I just rolled the default which is dice 0. Nothing occurred in the last 0 seconds, so I succeeded and did another, and another, and another.

If there’s no default and I have to just roll anything, then the implication would be that I can roll any dice, which again would be DICE0.

Oh, I think I see – you’re interpreting the rules as “DICE48 isn’t a real word in English”, so you’re deleting that word from the Heists rule, so that it just says “If a rule defines an action as a Heist Action, a Participant (the “performer”) can attempt to perform that action by, in a single Dice Roller comment, specifying the action they want to attempt, indicating any changes that would occur to ruletext as a consequence, and rolling”. I don’t agree with the “it defaults to a result of 0”, but think there’s an alternative plausible argument of “it doesn’t say what dice to roll, and I chose a DICE0”.

I believe this fails because DICE48 is “attestable as a name” – it is the name of a Dice Roller command, as defined in the Glossary rule “Random Generators”.

I also think there’s an alternative reason that it fails, but unfortunately there’s no point in explaining because you would be able to trivially redo the scam to get around that failure reason once you learned what it was.

So is it safe to say that there isn’t something to revert my win?

Honestly that’s what a DoV is for.

If SingularByte’s actions are legal, then the win worked. I can see two reasons why they might not be legal:

a) The series of heist actions may be illegal because DICE48 is not Gibberish (e.g. because it’s the name of a Dice Roller command). I think the relevant meaning of “attestable” here is “it is possible to provide evidence of”, and the Random Generators rule is, I think, evidence that DICE48 is a name for the purposes of BlogNomic.

b) If the Heist Actions work, then the way you perform Crimelord Dominance is somewhat underspecified – it seems to be one of our usual “update the tracker” actions, but achieving victory isn’t something you can do by updating the tracker. I suspect that this isn’t an obstacle in practice, though – assuming that the rule exists, adding Retired on the tracker is probably sufficient to demonstrate that the action has occurred, and in that case the victory would happen as well.

The DoV wouldn’t do its job so well because if the actions failed, the DoV would be illegal (due to Raven not being Retired), and thus it wouldn’t put BlogNomic into Hiatus. We’d have the awkward situation of not knowing whether there was a Hiatus or not. Additionally, if the DoV failed but Raven found a different path to victory in the near future, it would be unclear whether or not the 120-hour lockout existed and thus unclear whether the second DoV was legal or not.

This is the sort of issue that I was worried about when a rule against declaring victory was added.

I’d argue that if you treat DICE48 as a name, you may as well treat all words as names for themselves. (e.g. if you talk about the word “Apple”, then sure it refers to a fruit, but it’s also the name of a 5 letter word).

As for point b), it wasn’t exactly an update the tracker scam. I created a rule in Bank, then used the newly defined action in Bank to create a new immutable rule (which evades The Vault which only cares about modifying immutable rules, not creating them), and then this post is me using the newly defined Victory Action as set forth in the rule Winning.

Yeah, b) doesn’t work for me, the tracker is merely a representation of the game state. You can just take an action without updating the tracker, in theory, it’s just that (unless it’s announced) there’s no way for others to know.

@Snisbo: there has to be something that indicates the action happened, otherwise it doesn’t. Most dynasties, that’s tracker updates. This dynasty used dice roller comments as the main source of truth as to when actions occurred (after we had bad experiences with simultaneous actions last dynasty), although there were some purely tracker-based actions like setting Focus to *.

@SingularByte: right, what matters is that the action has been performed by the mechanisms stated in the rules – and because that involved a tracker update it’s sufficient to perform it, I think. It is quite possible that the action would have been impossible to perform, due to lack of mechanism, if not for the tracker update giving a way to perform it; there’s no “making a blog post is sufficient to perform actions that have no other way to perform them” in the ruleset. But that didn’t happen here. (This has caused problems in the past, e.g. for a while the ruleset gave no way to recognise whether the “idle/unidle a player” action had been performed; we eventually fixed that by officially tracking it on the blog sidebar.)