Monday, July 26, 2021

Call for Judgment: Dirt is Dirt, Dust is Dust 2.0 [Pressing]

Fewer than a quorum not voting against, 3-4. Failed by Brendan.

Adminned at 27 Jul 2021 16:05:27 UTC

Undo any Distill action done by any Vampire Lord who gained Influence via any Glyphs owned by Jumble from the resolution of Richardo’s Sixteenth Expedition until the passing of this CfJ.

Remove the Influence received by any Vampire Lord via Glyphs owned by Jumble in Richardo’s Sixteenth Expedition.

Jumble has no Sepulchre at that time, so the whole effect of

Whenever a Room is Pacified, if that room contains a Glyph then the Vampire Lord/s who owns that Glyph gain Influence equal to the amount of Energy lost by Richardo during the completion of that Move.

is blocked by

While a Vampire Lord does not have a Sepulchre, changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing, and any Vampire Lord or Richardo von Nestor may set their Influence to 0.

Open to conversation about scope - but scope is defined in a vacuum, not for each tactical position.

Comments

Josh: he/they

26-07-2021 14:12:33 UTC

I still strongly disagree with this on the basis that nothing that happened in Run 16 would have resulted in Jumble experiencing “changes which would increase their Influence”, so the do-nothing prohibition in the second quote doesn’t fire off.

Holding off voting so Kevan can argue that it should roll back Clucky’s and Lemon’s gains as well.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 14:17:25 UTC

@Josh the reasoning is not if or if not Jumble have their Influence changed, the reasoning is since the whole Influence adding effect from the Glyph is one effect, and also Jumble can’t have their Influence changed; so the effect can’t happen

Imo even scope don’t apply: the whole Glyph effect is one contiguous effect, and if at some part the effect can’t be processed ([Adding Jumble, Clucky and Lemon some Influence] is unable to be processing since Jumble can’t have their Influence changed) the effect is skipped.

But I’ll be leaving for Kevan to also argue on this.

Josh: he/they

26-07-2021 14:24:42 UTC

I think it does - the whole second quote box rests on whether Jumble’s influence would increase, and it wouldn’t, so it can’t block anything, including the whole action. But if that is the argument then it is unquestionably the case that it should take in all influence gained from those Glyphs, including those to Clucky and lemon.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 14:26:15 UTC

If the rule is worded in “Whenever a Room is Pacified, if that room contains a Glyph then for each of the Vampire Lord who owns that Glyph, they gain Influence equal to the amount of Energy lost by Richardo during the completion of that Move.” it would be what you’re describing

This would create 3 separate effect instead of the current 1, and only Jumble’s instance will be failed.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 14:27:18 UTC

@Josh it’s taking in all Influence gained using any Glyph owned by Jumble - incl. Clucky and Lemon.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 14:43:01 UTC

First off, “Remove the Influence received by any Vampire Lord via Glyphs owned by Jumble in Richardo’s Sixteenth Expedition.” is over-reaching. You could argue it reverts any influenced gained by a glyph owned by Jumble. (so lemon and I get nothing)

Secondly I think you’re ignoring this bit:

“Any Puissance or Influence that would accrue to an Enthralled Vampire Lord instead accrues to the Vampire Lord who Enthralls them”

The change would not increase Jumble’s influence, because he his influence gains accures to Lemon. Thus the change doesn’t do nothing.

ais523:

26-07-2021 14:48:14 UTC

@Clucky: See Kevan’s arguments on the older version of this proposal: he thinks you actually do get nothing. I think that Kevan is correct that the interaction of the two rules, if it does remove any influence from Jumble, removes it from you as well. (The basic issue is that the rule that gives Influence from a Glyph is worded so that there’s a single gain that affects three people, so the entire Glyph effect gets negated).

The way in which the two rules interact is more debatable, though: you could resolve it either way without a contradiction (I agree that the resolution you suggest is internally consistent, but the resolution in which there’s no gain and thus nothing to accrue is also internally consistent), and there’s nothing obvious in the rules to suggest which interpretation to take.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 14:55:29 UTC

@Clucky you’re also ignoring that it wouldn’t be accruable in the first place - changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing

Unless you’re arguing increasing Influence isn’t accruing Influence, then there’s two replacements available for the “Jumble gains Influence” effect; and we need to look to the Prioritisation part.

Since in a vacuum the above mentioned rule mentions one or more Vampire Lords, and the lower one also effects any Vampire Lord - one or more Vampire Lord.

Since both of the replacements have same scope in vacuum for Prioritisation point 4, then per point 5 the negative replacement takes precedence before the others.

Kevan: City he/him

26-07-2021 15:00:37 UTC

I don’t know that I have that much to add, but to restate how I’m reading this for my own reference as much as anyone’s, we’ve got:

1. ”[Jumble + Lemonfanta + Clucky] gain Influence equal to [X]”
2. “changes which would increase [Jumble’s] Influence instead do nothing”
3. “Any Puissance or Influence that would accrue to [Jumble] instead accrues to [Lemonfanta]”

The ambiguity is whether 2 takes precedence over 3 or vice versa. If 3 takes precedence then it doesn’t matter how we read 2. If 2 takes precedence then there’s a further question of whether 1 is cancelled entirely (the action of changing those three players’ Influences “instead [does] nothing”) or Jumble is skipped by it.

The phrasing of 2 as “changes [...] do nothing” (rather than something like “the Unsepulchred Vampire’s Influence is instead not increased”) does seem strong enough to block the entire action, to me.

I’m not sure how much guidance the ruleset is giving us on how to determine precedence between 2 and 3.

Brendan: he/him

26-07-2021 15:05:46 UTC

“... until the passing of the CfJ” should probably be “until the passing of this CfJ.”

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:06:01 UTC

@chiiika

why is it not accruable? there is no change that would happen that would increase jumble’s influence, because any time jumble’s influence is increased lemon’s increases instead. so I don’t see why the “changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing” would ever apply

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:07:12 UTC

@Kevan per RAW, the only possible guidance is Prioritisation.

Prioritisation
If two parts of the Ruleset contradict each other, precedence shall be construed in the following order:
1. The Appendix has precedence over any other Rule;
2. If a Core Rule explicitly says it cannot be overruled by a Dynastic Rule, that Core Rule has precedence over a Dynastic Rule, otherwise a Dynastic Rule has precedence over that Core Rule;
3. If a Special Case Rule explicitly says that it cannot be overruled by a Dynastic Rule, that Special Case Rule has precedence over a Dynastic Rule, otherwise a Dynastic Rule has equal precedence as that Special Case Rule;
4. If two contradicting parts have equal precedence, the part with more limited scope applies (e.g. if the rules “Vampire Lords may Kick each other” and “Vampire Lords may not Kick each other on Tuesdays” exist, and it is Tuesday, Vampire Lords may not Kick each other);
5. If two contradicting parts have the same scope, the negative rule applies (e.g. with “Vampire Lords may Punch a Spaceman on Friday” and “Vampire Lords may not Punch Spacemen on Friday”, then Vampire Lords may not Punch Spacemen on Friday).

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:07:46 UTC

@Kevan by that argument, isn’t the entire atomic action a single change that does nothing?

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:08:54 UTC

@chiiika I don’t think they really contradict each other. Lemon getting Jumble’s influence means Jumble’s influence doesn’t actually ever increase.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:09:42 UTC

@Brendan thanks for the catch. Fixed.

@Clucky can you explain why “jumble’s influence is increased lemon’s increases instead” takes precedence over “changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing”?

Since if the rule is applied the other way lemon can’t have her Influence increased.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:10:57 UTC

@Clucky we are on that. Since the whole “Atomic Effect” (for lack of a better word) can’t fully process, it should do nothing.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:16:22 UTC

Because again, I don’t think the change would increase Jumble’s influence so I don’t think it does nothing.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:16:53 UTC

And the entire atomic action in this case is the entire run

ais523:

26-07-2021 15:18:31 UTC

This is the opposite of a contradiction (for people who like logical paradoxes, this is the equivalent of “this sentence is true” rather than “this sentence is false”). Clucky is correct that giving Jumble’s influence to lemonfanta is an internally consistent outcome – no rules have been violated. However, preventing Jumble gaining influence is also an internally consistent outcome – again, no rules have been violated.

So there are two consistent ways to read the rules, and no obvious guidance for which reading to use.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:20:51 UTC

clearly the optimal solution is to just give Jumble 12 influence XD

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:22:27 UTC

@Clucky right, we agree on one part of the end result of “Clucky must have not received any Influence”

But in the resolution of such effects as Kevan showed it is possible to also cause a side effect of blocking the whole effect, thus not only “Clucky must have not received any Influence”, and also “The whole effect can’t effect itself”, per reasons as explained above.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:23:05 UTC

anyways, can we at the very least reword this so it doesn’t arguably revert ALL influence gains from the glyphs, just the stuff that Jumble earned and went to lemon?

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:26:10 UTC

as if Kevan’s argument is valid, the entire run didn’t happen

and literally every run is going to result in Jumble trying and failing to receive influence, so yay stuck in an infinite loop

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:28:11 UTC

I’m debating on if the whole Enter the Crypt action be redone on the principle of

If a Vampire Lord arrives at a step in an Atomic Action and they cannot perform that step, they undo all the steps they have performed of that Action and are considered never to have performed that Action.

But this would lock the game in a loop, also refencing Dynastic Distance:

Dynastic Distance [Active]
For the purposes of dynastic rules which do not deal with voting, the Richardo von Nestor is not a Vampire Lord.

If Richardo insist, he doesn’t even need to follow the rules binding Atomic Actions: He isn’t a Vampire Lord!

ais523:

26-07-2021 15:28:32 UTC

I don’t think Kevan’s argument invalidates the whole run?

The relevant rule is
“Whenever a Room is Pacified, if that room contains a Glyph then the Vampire Lord/s who owns that Glyph gain Influence equal to the amount of Energy lost by Richardo during the completion of that Move.”

“Vampire Lord/s” makes it clear to me that this is just one change that increases the Influence of multiple vampire lords, so that’s what’s being negated. It doesn’t meant that the entire Enter the Crypt atomic action fails.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:31:15 UTC

No.

[If a specific step of Entering the Crypt is impossible to perform, Richardo may skip it (this takes precedence over the Atomic Actions rule). ]

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:34:50 UTC

@chiiika atomic actions aren’t dynastic rules, so they still apply to richardo

Overall I think arguing that lemon doesn’t get any of Jumble’s influence is a reasonable interpretation of the rules, even if I disagree with it.

I think trying to claim that somehow any influence gains don’t happen but the run still does massaging stretching the definition of the scope of “changes which would increase their Influence instead do nothing” is not a reasonable interpretation of the rules at all.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:35:29 UTC

The legal run according to RAW would need to be constructed - since it’s impossible to apply Glyph effect, the whole part of (Apply any Effects at his current location, in the order that they are listed in the rule Effects, to Richardo) needs to be skipped

And because of (If one or more steps of an Atomic Action were done incorrectly, the Vampire Lord must redo the Atomic Action; for that purpose, the Vampire Lord uses any legal steps that have already been completed in the illegal Atomic Action and only redoes the illegal ones. (For example, if an Atomic Action consists of rolling a dice and then doing steps based upon its result, the Vampire Lord would have to reroll the dice only if they rolled the wrong one in the first place, and would then have to repeat any steps that depended upon the result of that dice; however, if they rolled the dice correctly but took an illegal step later on, the result of the original dice roll would still be used in the redone step.)), it would be possible to construct a legal run and replace it, using all the legal choices, skip the impossible steps, and continue the run from there.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:38:47 UTC

its not impossible to apply the glyph effect. there are two, different, internally consistent ways to apply the glyph effect.

Chiiika: she/her

26-07-2021 15:44:45 UTC

Methinks since the RAW didn’t provide the information on how to resolve this priorities issue, and since the Atomic Action for the Enter the Crypt action can’t be continued and Richardo didn’t skip it it’s not done per RAW

And also you can’t have two legal way to resolve the matter - when one is legal the other is illegal excluding modal actions (you either do B or do C or do D when A happens) I am thinking can both resolve methods be legal both - and how to prioritise between them.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 15:50:03 UTC

I think in this situation there are two reasonable ways to resolve the matter. it comes down to Josh’s interpretation.

In any case, we should add clarity to the rules over which interpretation should be followed.

Then, if enough people agree that Josh’s interpretation is the wrong one we can rectify the gamestate to match the rest of the games interpretation instead.

Josh: he/they

26-07-2021 16:21:36 UTC

That’s an interesting point, Clucky.

There may not be ruleset prioritisation but there is de facto prioritisation: whatever I do in the run, so long as it can be substantiated, is de jure the prioritised outcome.

Not ideal! Puts a lot of weight on my judgment. Definitely an incentive to change the rules if unpopular. But the CfJ to revert my decision is probably only justified when my decision is outright *wrong*, and I don’t think that’s the case here.

Lulu: she/her

26-07-2021 18:36:52 UTC

imperial

Brendan: he/him

26-07-2021 18:44:56 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

26-07-2021 18:53:31 UTC

against

Kevan: City he/him

26-07-2021 19:44:18 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 19:48:05 UTC

against

ais523:

26-07-2021 20:48:41 UTC

for tactically – I’d normally vote purely on a rules basis, but I believe there’s very little to choose between FOR and AGAINST rules-wise, so I’m going to vote based on what’s likely to give better gameplay for the rest of the dynasty.

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 20:50:49 UTC

lol imagine pretending with a straight face eliminating a turn three players spent multiple round setting up “gives better gameplay for the rest of the dynasty”

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 20:51:07 UTC

if you’re gonna vote for this thing, at least be honest with everyone about why you’re voting for it

ais523:

26-07-2021 21:36:31 UTC

The fact that you spent two rounds (which is technically “multiple”) setting it up doesn’t actually change the fact that it would have been possible to set up in just one round. Making it sound like this was some sort of complex long-term plan is an exaggeration – it’s something that anyone could have done with a three-person pool, an Imperial Favour, and around 9 Puissance total.

I was intentionally avoiding similar plans myself because I thought it would be likely to turn the entire nomic’s playerlist against the pool that did it. (It seems that it has indeed turned a large proportion of the playerlist against you, although surprisngly not Josh, who seems to be in favour.)

Clucky: he/him

26-07-2021 21:41:52 UTC

gonna love how you are both trying to argue “no one else can possibly come back if we don’t prevent this from happening” and “this didn’t take much time to setup”

lemon: she/her

26-07-2021 21:42:56 UTC

against

ais523:

26-07-2021 23:36:21 UTC

@Clucky: the two aren’t inconsistent, because you’re in such a dominant position.

Your three-person pool, together with Imperial Favours, meant that you could do very powerful moves very cheaply, and in a way that nobody else could replicate.

You still have most of that capability, which is why it will be very hard for anyone to catch up.

ais523:

26-07-2021 23:48:45 UTC

By the way, I’m not sure this does anything: the influence was granted by Josh’s CFJ, not by Glyphs.

lemon: she/her

27-07-2021 01:10:35 UTC

the defining of how big or small a “change which would increase Influence” is here is utterly arbitrary