Could you disclose the secret keys that were used to generate this outcome? From an audit trail perspective it would be useful to be able to validate what we’re voting on.

Sure, my criteria and salts at the time were:

“Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 523”
(ae641c42fca528e56297419a01a317f960e01c8a93374dc74e4080fc6a94da3a)
“Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 124”
(c48411fcb99771f9f0204e9f8c183a1b338682fa06b4aa1e1a784b9f0aed32fd)
“Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 436”
(284d2a485da1ba8593d26eec6571afd1b3150175459ae503f5064550d4e84230)
“Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 415”
(57e40f6217fff585f36fbc28b8a479cab153cabda9adba601727190d1103559d)
“Doesn’t contain a Mornington Crescent mug. 774”
(26c7d8f66e984b877dd065fc29df9869e6232f2c38461eb171fc8f85b0a7cdf5)

Hm, I’m on the fence about this one.

I think that there is a material difference between this and Clucky’s CfJ, but whether it’s material enough to impact my vote is a fair question. To be clear, I’m leaning heavily AGAINST on this, but it may prompt me to swing AGAINST on Clucky’s as well.

Letting you start out with a random sampling of positive/negative criteria feels like its giving you a bit of a leg up as it can be a challenge getting a good criteria that splits things

Also while its quite likely your other four criteria wouldn’t have matched anything, I wouldn’t have called it “trivially easy for you to work around”. There is certainly a small chance that whatever you came up with for your four other “this probably won’t happen” criteria actually did happen

So currently on the fence leaning against, but would probably be on the fence leaning for if it was just the first half

Another consideration is “what would’ve happened if people just stayed quiet”

If I comment “oh oops. I don’t find this aesthetically pleasing. I score the same” on Kevan’s snap does anyone actually notice the rule break or do we carry on like nothing happens? I’m not sure anyone would’ve caught it. At least until later at which point it would’ve been rather hard to undo and others would’ve made the same mistake.

Meanwhile, if Kevan doesn’t catch his mistake, and then when he’s forced to reveal his private criteria and we realize that he broke the rule, how do we proceed? I think we probably strip the award, as harsh as it is.

Turns out I’m pretty good, or pretty lucky, at picking good split criteria - I had three at 4-4 back in mid-March.

My “this probably won’t happen” criteria would have been obscure items I owned which I felt very confident nobody else did. The odds of another player owning a particular mug and choosing or happening to place it in the frame of a photo seem vanishingly low.

As you say in your CfJ, your scoring mistake dented your chances of reaching Conceptual Balance in the near future. If you had reached it and claimed it, and we realised that you shouldn’t have been able to reach it due to that earlier mistake, would we not have stripped your award?

Per my comment on Clucky’s CfJ.

Given another player literally made the same mistake I did less than 24 hours later I imagine we would’ve probably just played on

I’m not sure why Clucky is voting the way he is on, this, but I agree with his statement, and not his vote, that the addressing of Kevan’s situation makes this a

This goes a little too far on a couple of points. I can’t get behind adding random scoring to make up for some loss for what might have been if a CfJ was requested earlier. I also feel that this CfJ and the Clucky’s are now intertwined with the voting and arguments being made.

Kevan, I think you did the right thing the first time.

As I stated I was on the fence but Josh convinced me with his vote on my CFJ: Sportsmanship should come first