Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Call for Judgment: Dijini are supposed to grant valid wishes

AQed, fails 2-13. Ienpw.

Adminned at 12 Jan 2010 21:18:48 UTC

This is the second time that the current Dijin has not granted a valid wish for me. The rules state that I can use a CFJ to make the Dijin grant my wish, and so I choose to do so.
My wish was:
I wish that you would create a new relic with the property text of “If this relic is owned by any adventurer, tecslicer has achieved victory.”

The dijin replied that it was not granted “only because I want to let everyone have a fair chance” Which feels like a parent giving everybody else 10 points because one player made a good move, and this is upsetting all the other children. Everyone DOES have a fair chance to wish for this very thing, to not get the relic, to prevent me and anybody else from getting the relic, to do any number of things to make this not give me the win, but to not allow it on this basis is unsporting for me, and anybody else that takes the time to think up clever wishes.

Therefore if this CFJ passes force the Djinni to create a new relic with the property text of “If this relic is owned by any adventurer, tecslicer has achieved victory.”

Comments

Klisz:

12-01-2010 03:28:43 UTC

against

Klisz:

12-01-2010 03:30:50 UTC

It specifically says later in the rule “There are some wishes he will not grant.”

Klisz:

12-01-2010 03:31:31 UTC

Also, there is no Dijin or Dijini. It’s Djinn and Djinni - double N, no I between the D and J.

spikebrennan:

12-01-2010 03:33:22 UTC

against
not convinced that he’s required to accept a victory condition

redtara: they/them

12-01-2010 03:42:04 UTC

Idle FOR - not just because I want the dynasty to end. I think it’s a clever loophole.

Darknight: he/him

12-01-2010 03:55:07 UTC

against I think I’ve been rather fair with my wish granting. However, I do not like how I’m suppost to bend down and grant every wish. That’s why the rule says that I do not have to grant wishes. Your first non-granted wish, if I recall, would have made an infinity loop with everyones corruption. I felt like that would cause trouble so I denied it, though yes I think my reson at the time was abit different. This one I denied because 1. Theres a VC and 2. It would effectively ended the dynasty cause all you’d have to do is get a hint, figure it out and get the relic. How would that have been fair? Srry if you think I’m not being fair but, and not to be mean, always look at the bigger picture.

Apathetic Lizardman:

12-01-2010 04:08:15 UTC

against That’s like saying “I wish to achieve victory.”

Josh: he/they

12-01-2010 07:16:53 UTC

for Eh, fair. It’s a clever loophole.

digibomber:

12-01-2010 07:35:22 UTC

against The rule allows the Djinni to be arbitrary.

ais523:

12-01-2010 09:14:07 UTC

against The rule was phrased as it was specifically to rule out that sort of loophole.

Kevan: City he/him

12-01-2010 09:26:36 UTC

against The rule says “Wishes that will not be granted include, but are not limited to:”. Nothing illegal here. You just need to be a bit more subtle.

NoOneImportant:

12-01-2010 13:05:09 UTC

against

Although I also feel cheated by the Djinn… he took his time granting me the lamp and I’ve had one wish denied because he didn’t feel like updating the GNDT and another one has suffered a “pocket veto”. I don’t like being in limbo. :(

Qwazukee:

12-01-2010 14:43:02 UTC

against But I think this is a fair use of a CfJ; by rule, we could overrule the Djinn if we wanted to but we don’t have to.

If tec writes it more subtly, as Kevan says, than it will be more likely to work out.

NoOneImportant:

12-01-2010 21:39:40 UTC

This wouldn’t result in tecslicer winning anyway. Rule 3.2.5

Wakukee:

12-01-2010 21:53:10 UTC

Personally, I think that this is covered under “Wishes that a player achieve victory.” I specifically did not say “wishes that cause a player to achieve victory” since, theoretically, any legal wish could do that in some way. I never forsaw a rule that would allow legal manipulation of the ruleset, so I did not specifically disallow this wish, but the Djinn does have some disgressionary freedom in granting/not granting wishes.

Though it sounds like it might be time for a “new” Djinn granting wishes? Do people think I should unidle?

Wakukee:

12-01-2010 21:53:55 UTC

(*idle against )

Darknight: he/him

12-01-2010 21:57:46 UTC

Bare with me Wak. I got a back log of wishes during the night lol.

Aquafraternally Yours:

12-01-2010 22:36:34 UTC

against

tecslicer:

13-01-2010 00:03:58 UTC

MY interp of the rule stating “The Djinn is supposed to, to the best of his ability, grant all wishes legally requested of him by an Adventurer” is that the Djinn is supposed to grant valid wishes, but that those wishes that are not legal are the “Some” that he will not grant.

@Kevan: Yeah, subtlety. But I was not going for a subtle win, rather, a sound win. but yeah if the djinn does not have to grant legal wishes I need to reevaluate, and sneak one by him.

But NOI is right (Forgot about that rule, thanks There) the relic still would not grant me the win unless is states “The adventurer named tecslicer achieves victory. so. against

yabbaguy:

13-01-2010 02:00:18 UTC

against

Bucky:

13-01-2010 04:31:12 UTC

“Wishes for things the Djinn is not willing to do, such as idle himself, will obviously not be fulfilled.”    against .