Why do you get to keep your Ace of Spades and 2 Evidence, and Kevan stays on 1 and I lose my 9 of spades? Like, if there’s a logical reason for that I’m down to vote this through

It’s the opposite: you and I and everyone else aren’t considered to have taken any actions, so can take those actions again.

“no player beside me be considered to have taken any action in this Dynasty, except those taken after the time at which this CfJ was posted” - you still have the actions and can redo them, as they ‘took place’ before this was posted. (I missed your action as it ocurred while drafting. and Kevan has disagreed with my interpretation of events so I wanted to give him the opportunity to vote on principle with the full liberty of options.)

Oh, I see.

This screws me because I picked up my nine of spades after the CFJ was posted, I’m going to lose it now and I can’t pick up another card.

Am a little nervous about what “no player beside me be considered to have taken any action in this Dynasty” means for general game actions so far this dynasty, like submitting requests to the Past Memory and enacting proposals.

It could use a “(for the purposes of determining whether a daily, weekly or once-per-Act action may be performed)”.

This screws me because I picked up my nine of spades after the CFJ was posted, I’m going to lose it now and I can’t pick up another card. For the record, it’s after the timestamp but not after it was posted, which was exactly 18.28 UTC

Can I edit cfjs?

Doesn’t this still mean that Josh is considered not to have taken any actions also? It says “the definition of the gamestate is clear and the status of whether a player has taken it or not probably doesn’t qualify”

[Josh] yes you can

Done an edit

Or, to be precise, this CfJ doesn’t really say whether Josh is considered to have taken any actions

[Josh] yeah this “no player beside me” phrase I think does not address what actions you have or have not taken

(Commented after the edit)

I’m confused both what CfJ you’re talking about and what this CfJ actually does if enacted

Another edit

Clucky - see here https://blognomic.com/archive/we_forgot_something_core

Oh, the tracking document edit history means that Josh can’t retake his actions?

If that’s the case, I would like to pull the opposite move as Kevan, have my card edited in, and be in the same boat as Josh for determining whether I’m allowed to take additional actions

Oh I see the new edit now. I would still like the to have my card edited in and be considered to have taken the card action.

Oh I see the new edit now. I would still like the to have my card edited in and be considered to have taken the card action.

okay, not entirely sure what Kevan did was necessary guess it depends on how you consider synonyms to work.

as far as what this CfJ does… does it do anything? Or does it just affirm that yes, it is true that Josh has suggested a remediation.

The rules for enacting CfJs: “When a CfJ is Enacted, the Admin Enacting it shall update the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correct any gamestate-tracking entities, as specified in the CfJ.”

Thus, if Kevan’s CfJ didn’t fix things, they probably aren’t fixable via a CfJ that attempts to change them directly. I think Kevan’s CfJ worked; but if it didn’t, any attempt to fix the gamestate will have to be done by creating a new rule that performs the fix.

There is certainly a big old paradox here in that this CfJ is asking whether the historical record of game actions is alterable gamestate, and if we judge that it’s not, to fix this by altering the historical record of game actions.

Josh has drawn a card. But has Josh generated cards by using the CARD command in the Dice Roller until a card is generated that is not already in a hand, then put that card into his hand? Or, no? I don’t know what you would have to write to make this work, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t right now.

Additionally, I wanted my card put into my hand, or I wanted Josh to have to redraw a card. CfJs should treat different players equally, especially when one of those players is the maker of the CfJ. I understand that I drew my card as he was making the post and he could not have possibly anticipated that. I also understand that he may not have seen my last comment asking for that change. However, I feel that this CfJ is unfair without that change, since it is possible based on the information available to me that Josh basically took an extra action, looked at his card, went I like this card, kept it, saw my card, decided he would rather have me re-roll, and ignored my request. I’m not saying this is what happened, I’m saying I have no guarantee otherwise based on what I know.

Because this is either unnecessary or broken.

If the historical record of gamestate actions is amendable gamestate, then We Forgot Something already modified who’d taken which past actions when it said to “Change the gamestate and ruleset to ...”

If the historical record of gamestate actions is not amendable gamestate, then this proposal goes no further than resetting some game data without giving the affected players their action slots back, because its “no player beside me be considered to have taken any action in this Dynasty” clause has no effect. The admin enacting a CfJ can only “update the Gamestate and Ruleset, and correct any gamestate-tracking entities”, and if the historical record isn’t gamestate there’s nothing to update.

@Kevan - Fair enough. This CfJ does nothing; I’m reverting my actions in the wiki to having taken place. If you disagree with that then please raise a counter-CfJ that has an effect.

Whether or not a fix is necessary, this CFJ wouldn’t actually fix it.