Monday, November 25, 2013

Call for Judgment: Definitions are a pain

Failed by a proposal, processed by Kevan.

Adminned at 29 Nov 2013 10:34:51 UTC

I recently attempted to preform the Corruption Action the central bank. Clucky undid the whole act saying that he can’t be targeted since he is at home. I believe that anything that is “x person of your choice” is targeting and something that says a certain office or set of people(like all oligarchs) is not targeting a person. Therefore, in my act, the only illegal part was giving Clucky back the 10 power as on of the 2 other oligarchs. I’m not sure what everyone considers the definition of target so I wanted this to be clarified and also to straighten out if I preformed an act or not. Therefore I think the GNDT should be affected as follows:

Increase the power of the oligarchs Larrytheturtle and RaichuKFM by 10. Decrease the Power of the oligarch known as Clucky by 10.

I don’t plan to argue this if people don’t agree. I just am honestly unsure of how to define target.


Clucky: he/him

25-11-2013 22:00:40 UTC

I am still a target of the action even if I’m specifically named.

The rule set should probably be changed to allow people to continue to do that action (or make the despot the target instead of the director) in order to be fair, but I think technically the action can’t currently be performed because I’m the target.


Josh: he/they

25-11-2013 22:05:39 UTC


Clucky: he/him

25-11-2013 22:09:25 UTC

also: wouldn’t this technically allow Larry to perform another flunky action?


25-11-2013 22:20:14 UTC

for for the interpretation,  against because it’ll give Larry another flunky action.  Fail this, then go do it again is what I’d say.


26-11-2013 03:50:53 UTC

I honestly meant to include a “Larrytheturtle is considered to have preformed a flunky action for the week”. I will just not do another but I suppose it is better to have in writing… I guess I will make a new one if this fails. CFJs can’t be self killed so I can’t kill it myself.


26-11-2013 11:52:45 UTC


RaichuKFM: she/her

26-11-2013 13:09:57 UTC

against Per extra actions; I agree with your interpretation of target, though. The Director losing 10 power just kinda happens “and the Director loses 10 Power” instead of, say, “and [the user] reduces the Director’s power by 10”, which actually still doesn’t feel like targeting to me.

Kevan: he/him

26-11-2013 13:28:10 UTC


If Larry takes a second Flunky action we can just make a proposal to undo it, and fine him some Power for his impertinence.

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-11-2013 13:34:41 UTC

against Per extra actions; I agree with your interpretation of target, though. The Director losing 10 power just kinda happens “and the Director loses 10 Power” instead of, say, “and [the user] reduces the Director’s power by 10”, which actually still doesn’t feel like targeting to me.

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-11-2013 14:05:23 UTC

for Good point, Kevan. And sorry for my chronic multi-posting; school computers are terrible.


26-11-2013 14:05:47 UTC



26-11-2013 15:16:25 UTC

against I’m with Clucky here. He is protected from Flunky Actions that target him, and the Corruption Action specifically points to (targets) the Director. Whether or not it makes sense from a gameplay angle is of secondary importance.


26-11-2013 18:05:35 UTC

against  per Purplebeard


26-11-2013 20:12:21 UTC

I don’t agree but my case is already laid out so I don’t really have anything to add though, I don’t see how you can hold that position while not one of you said anything when RaichuKFM did the oil well action and gave 5 power to people at home. That targets people no more or less than what I did.


26-11-2013 21:17:05 UTC

for CoV with Kevan.

RaichuKFM: she/her

26-11-2013 22:34:45 UTC

Yeah, if Corruption actions are illegal when the Director is Home, then the Drilling action was carried out wrong. Now’s a bit late to speak up against it, really.

Clucky: he/him

27-11-2013 00:17:45 UTC

eh, just because we missed that doesn’t mean we should keep playing wrong.

Also currently this CfJ can’t legally be resolved =)


27-11-2013 00:29:47 UTC

We only need one more for vote or simply to await time. It isn’t like it never will be. Also the point isn’t that we were playing wrong, it is that we believe the Ruleset should be interpreted as stated in this.

Clucky: he/him

27-11-2013 01:23:46 UTC

my was point is that just because Riachu did an action where he targeted players at home and it wasn’t caught, it doesn’t mean we have to assume you actually are able to target players at home. Its not very relevant to the actual question of whether or not I was targeted.

and as far as my other point goes, power cannot be negative and thus any action that would set it below zero is illegal, and that includes passing the CfJ if it has enough for votes. =D


27-11-2013 02:22:48 UTC

I won’t be able to be failed either…. I guess it will sit here till you have over 10 power…


27-11-2013 02:45:48 UTC

for I definitely agree that the corruption action isn’t “targeting” as the action isn’t directed at Clucky. Think of MTG or Hearthstone for instance - there are cards that cannot be the specific target of a spell, but can still get hit by an area of attack spell that is targeted at a creature next to it. Similarly here - Clucky is just an unfortunate casualty rather than the target.


27-11-2013 07:58:21 UTC

kikar: the rules of MtG provide a detailed explanation of what ‘target’ means in the context of that game. Our ruleset doesn’t. (I’m not familiar with Hearthstone, so can’t comment on that)

Suppose another Action reads “The Oligarch named turtlemoon gains 10 Power”. Would you say that turtlemoon is the target of this Action?

Kevan: he/him

27-11-2013 10:59:57 UTC

The MtG adjectival use of “target” is a little ideosyncratic, but not a huge leap from the dictionary’s noun definition of “a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack”, which implies an active decision - if an action automatically affected every Loyal Oligarch, the General plus an Oligarch of my choice, I’d interpret that as only the final person being “targetted”.