My issue with this is that it prevents pointing out that an invalid win was invalid. As a result, it forces players to proceed with an incorrect gamestate so as to not break the Fair Play rule, and I don’t think it’s fair to put players into that position.

With the current rule, it’s probably reasonable to avoid violating the rule by simply not posting a DoV (although that doesn’t fit the exact wording of the rule, which prevents using a scam to achieve victory even if you don’t declare it; we might want to fix that).

pointing out that a win is invalid is not a scam

@Clucky: and pointing out that a proposal that generates a win is illegal is?

i’m confused what you’re trying to argue here

right now, its apparently perfectly within the realm of fair play to abuse the core rules in order to specifically prevent another player from winning

pointing out a flaw with a proposal doesn’t abuse the core rules, so nothing about this would change that

@ais523 Clucky may be referring to SB’s actions as a scam due to the fact that SB called them a core rules scam in the Discord. I am not sure if you are on the Discord, in which case you would not have seen the message.
I am concerned that “indirectly prevent a Nomicer from achieving victory” is too broadly applicable, and as such am voting against this proposal.

I mean we already have indirectly allowing a Nomicer to achieve victory… how is this any different?

Sort of empty words, I think, as Fair Play only holds meaningful sanctions for people who break the rules to achieve Victory or who are persistent offenders.

So how do we prevent people from breaking the rules in order to stop someone else from winning again?

cause I don’t think that sort of behavior is good for the game. leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the people who were denied victory.

@Clucky The usual way: multiple CfJs and lots of fraught arguing.

I’d consider ruletext to prevent it that worked. I don’t think this is it.

I don’t think CfJs can really stop that though. SingularByte going “Yes this was a core rules scam and yes I used it to stop people from achieving victory” ultimately only matters insofaras if you buy the argument that blocking victory indirectly allows someone to achieve victory.

Personally, I’d be happy just killing all core rules scams. But if allowing them to deny victory while not allowing them to achieve victory to me creates an inconsistency that will just result in frustration and hurt feelings

This is a tricky one. This particular case of me abusing a core rule to try and make a post illegal is fairly clear cut because I was so open about my reasoning, but I imagine it would be a lot harder in cases where someone doesn’t give their motives for why they apply a particular rule unexpectedly.

Someone like ais, who gets very into the details of how core rules mesh together, could easy be said to be in breach of this with no intention to actually scam anything.

@SingularByte I’m not sure what you did was even a scam, it was just an overly-punctilious reading of the rules. What is nomic without that

Core victory scams need to be blocked in advance because the dynasty is over if they work, and there’s a lot of social friction to rolling back a new dynasty. Lesser core scams can be handled case-by-case.

Would also agree that a CfJ of “was this illegal?” isn’t a core scam.

Even though it sounds like a simple binary comparison, “cause a Nomicer to achieve victory” is a much more clear-cut thing to determine than “prevent a Nomicer from achieving victory”. One could endlessly come up with ways to suggest that an action prevented a Nomicer from achieving victory, which then goes to the argument of whether or not that Nomicer should have achieved victory. It creates the danger of going down the rabbit hole.

I’d rather deal with this sort of thing on a per-case basis as Kevan suggested.