Sunday, November 03, 2013

Declaration of Victory: Gridlock

Times Out and Can’t Enact 2-3. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 05 Nov 2013 11:11:33 UTC

As per rule 2.1, I achieve victory.

Supported by Sequester Rule 1.13, as the Sequester came into effect today at 2.36pm. It should have been 3pm, but Larrytheturtle edited the page twice on 31 October, and my edit removing his second edit allowed me to move the clock forward by 6 hours. (RaichuKFM claimed to have added the same clause but the change log shows that he actually just changed one of the words in the clause; I have removed what remains of Larry’s illegal edit.)

Clearly there are several Sequester rules with varying effects, but 3.3.6 Prioritisation mandates that in the event of conflicting dynastic rules the one with the more limited scope wins; Sequester Rule 1.13 is treated as a Dynastic rule for this thanks to rule 2.2 (“with the same status as Dynastic Rules”), and is more limited than any of them in terms of both duration (today) and effect, given that it only impacts a certain number of specified rules. Sequester 1.13 of course can’t allow victory directly, but it can do so indirectly - via keywords, as defined at the top of 3.1 Keywords.



03-11-2013 16:40:35 UTC

“the gamestate becomes Polarised at 9am on November 3rd 2013”

Moving the trigger time backwards doesn’t actually cause this to trigger.

Josh: he/they

03-11-2013 21:21:41 UTC

Interesting argument. I’m not sure that I agree - I think it causes the trigger to occur retroactively, as the ruleset in its present form governs the entire gamestate, past, present and future, and effectively suggesting that a past event supercedes a plain English reading of the ruleset requires a very powerful invisible gamestate.


04-11-2013 02:22:31 UTC

Okay.  What I think actually happened is that (since a +6hours action was illegal) the gamestate actually became polarized at 9am on November 3rd, which was before your final edit to the Sequester.



04-11-2013 02:35:21 UTC

Support for the above: If I had edited the Sequester to change the polarization time to immediately and illegally changed the polarization time to the current time, it would not have caused the game to become Polarized.

Josh: he/they

04-11-2013 07:34:22 UTC

That’s the one interpretation that’s completely impossible, as it’s not Larrytheturtle’s illegal action that causes the sequester time to move back - it’s my reversion of it (specifically, the act of removing something from the sequester page). In other words, the Polarisation time couldn’t move back *until* my final edit to the Sequester.


04-11-2013 08:43:28 UTC

Regardless of the legality of the changes and their effects on the deadline, you failed to account for rule 3.3.5 by not explicitly stating that “Josh” refers to an MN.

Josh: he/they

04-11-2013 09:09:11 UTC


“In Rule 2.1 of the Ruleset, “No MN” is a Keyword for the MN known as “Josh”“

Josh: he/they

04-11-2013 09:10:58 UTC

I know that BlogNomic is averse to rule scam victories, and that scrutiny is the order of the day on DoVs, but this is starting to feel a little desperate.


04-11-2013 09:22:15 UTC

Ah, apologies, I’d misread that.

RaichuKFM: she/her

04-11-2013 13:29:32 UTC

So, when was Larry’s double edit? Sequester page history isn’t showing it to me. As such, I’d have to call Josh’s last edit illegal for removing the phrase “any rule” in the “Example Sequester Rule”. On the retroactive argument, I’d have to go with Josh. Benefit of the doubt preventing an AGAINST.

RaichuKFM: she/her

04-11-2013 13:31:33 UTC

Oh, why did I neglect the flavor text. Turtlemoon edited twice, not Larrytheturtle.

RaichuKFM: she/her

04-11-2013 13:36:17 UTC

Turtlemoon’s second edit added the phrase “in the Sequester”; Josh removed the phrase “any Rule”, which Turtlemoon added in his legal edit. (Actually “any rule but”) Unless I’m missing something, Josh removing this was illegal, regardless of whether my edit technically added “in the Sequester” or not. against

RaichuKFM: she/her

04-11-2013 13:48:51 UTC

Also, that Turtlemoon clause still exists but was split by other phrases. It was never partially removed, and even if somehow you could remove the first edit you did so incorrectly. (Sorry for four posts in a row.)

Josh: he/they

04-11-2013 14:01:04 UTC

Damnit, quite right. I did revert the wrong edit.

I’ll offer this as a counter-argument, though: the Sequester rule says that “The Sequester page of the wiki may be edited once per day by each MN”. As Turtlemoon (sorry Larry, too many turtles) edited twice, I think that it can correctly be argued that the second edit actually makes both edits illegal. There is no causative basis in the ruleset to assume that the second edit is the illegal one; it is the one that caused the illegality, but from the ruleset’s perspective it simply caused an illegal gamestate. Resolving that illegal gamestate is agnostic as to which of the edits is removed.

To your later points, in order for this to work I don’t have to have fully resolved the issue of the illegal edit; I simply have to have removed some content that was illegal under the terms of the Sequester rule.

On that basis the DoV stands.
(Not that it matters, but it should be mentioned that on that basis I achieve victory the moment this DoV is resolved anyway - unless the resolving admin hijacks my scam, which would be *mildly* annoying.)


04-11-2013 14:10:39 UTC

Actually, regardless of how the log recorded it (and I don’t think the log was used as a measuring device in the Rules) I only made one edit at that time. It was just sloppily done. Notice that by the time my fumbling was done, I only moved the clock one increment in the Sequester Rule. (Though I was a bit sloppy there too ;-).

Just saying. In case it matters.

RaichuKFM: she/her

04-11-2013 14:18:49 UTC

Hmm. That is a good point. The way I see it, however, is that the second edit was an illegal action and should have been reverted immediately, which I did, but I don’t know if it actually counted. I think this comes down to whether or not Josh’s edit was illegal, which depends on whether or not my edit counted as reverting the Turtlemoon one. Assuming that did count as two edits; I’m actually completely unsure on that. Anyone else’s input on this?


04-11-2013 14:26:14 UTC

Looked again. Not seeing specific definition or measurement of “edit.” So, went with “it said this when I started and that when I finished” as a working understanding of an edit.

Obviously, I can’t defend the legality of it, since y’all can certainly argue tidiness and grace as requirements for a complete action of any kind. Still, I would argue that “illegality” requires consideration of the complete act - not half of it. When it was done, the rule changed meaning in one sense, and the Sequester Rule changed state by only one increment in one direction.

Any other MN’s subsequent action took place after my completed “edit” and shouldn’t be reliant on what happened halfway through my action.

Just my opinion.


04-11-2013 14:49:21 UTC

Sorry to natter on, but I actually saw Josh’s last edit of the Sequester as two edits, since he edited two different rules. The fact that it was only one edit when measured by the log doesn’t necessarily make it one edit.

‘Nuff said by me :-) imperial

Josh: he/they

04-11-2013 15:23:33 UTC

Raichu and Turtlemoon’s objection appears to be the same one - whether the wiki’s log can be considered to be a fair and reliable assessment of what constitutes an edit. In both cases, we’re being asked to trust the mental state and intent of the authors over the objective information carried in the mechanical logs.

I’d argue that they’re equally invalid. The wiki’s logs may not be endowed with ruleset status but they are by a clear distance the only objective measure of wiki interaction we have.


04-11-2013 15:37:36 UTC

Though, in my case, we could simply compare before and after. That seemed, to me, more reliable than the the log, since the log failed to catch Josh’s double edit ;-)

Josh: he/they

04-11-2013 15:50:43 UTC

What double edit? I only did one.

(Nb the stipulation on only one edit targets the page, not the rules.)


04-11-2013 20:53:20 UTC

My opinion is this: Turtlemoon’s second edit was illegal.  Josh’s removal of part of Turtlemoon’s first edit was also illegal.  (An edit made to the Sequester page by an MN may add content but never remove it, unless it violates a clause of this rule or the change is an effect of the passage of a Voteable Matter.)  This is because when Turtlemoon posted it, it was legal, and it’s illogical to make it illegal because of something that happened after it.
However.  Turtlemoon delayed the time of Polarization after his second edit, which was illegal - implying that the delay was associated with his second edit.  Thus, the time of Polarization would be 9am (at 9am Nov. 3), and the gamestate Polarized when Josh made his edit.
Therefore, Josh’s entire edit was illegal by 2.2-3. against


04-11-2013 20:57:41 UTC

“That’s the one interpretation that’s completely impossible, as it’s not Larrytheturtle’s illegal action that causes the sequester time to move back”

I am claiming that the sequester time never moved forwards in the first place, despite his edit to the ruleset indicating that it did.


04-11-2013 21:05:53 UTC

Ooh, wait, I’m wrong about the order of Turtlemoon’s actions.  Then only the removal part was illegal, but I still vote AGAINST.

Clucky: he/him

04-11-2013 21:24:21 UTC

Yeah, josh shouldn’t have been able to move up the sequester time, but I think he might still win given once the hiatus ends we’ll certainly be sequestered. Anyone unknotted the sequester page enough to tell?

Clucky: he/him

04-11-2013 21:31:53 UTC

for yeah as far as I can tell, Josh will achieve victory once we de-haitus. Although the clause that kills all the other sequester rules doesn’t apply, “josh wins” outscopes “no one can win” Larry could idle josh but he could just unidle. Bucky’s proposal enacting powers don’t let him speed up the time needed. I don’t see anything else that can stop him. So it would be a race, and we don’t want to encourage people to have be on all the time just to win a race. So lets just speed things up…


04-11-2013 22:23:05 UTC

@Clucky: As far as I can tell, at 9am, we Polarized and then immediately unpolarized (Sequester 1.2 white text).  So later Sequester changes were effective, but we are still not Polarized so they don’t do anything.


05-11-2013 01:38:15 UTC

So, just so I know, we are in hiatus, but not polarized?


05-11-2013 02:31:59 UTC

Actually, Larry can’t idle Josh - He has to idle AND unidle someone, and it has to be my choice.  No, we wouldn’t have unpolarized by the S1.2 white text, as it explicitly states it never ceases to be Polarized.

Clucky: he/him

05-11-2013 03:42:16 UTC

Couldn’t you argue that if “josh has achieved victory” is gamestate even for a second, removing it does not reverse the win?


05-11-2013 03:53:33 UTC

On an unimportant note by rule 3.3.5 I can neither idle or unidle anyone.


05-11-2013 04:04:08 UTC

I can’t help but feel that “the MN known as” in sequester rule 1.13 is just an explanatory clause and not a part of the phrase “No MN” is a keyword for. I see it this way since the parentheses define the boundary of the keyword. If they don’t then why couldn’t I choose to cut it however I want, for instance “No MN” could be a keyword for “the MN known as “Josh” and “can win”“. The point being that Josh isn’t stated as referring to an MN in rule 2.1. I don’t actually think this will hold up but just wanted to see what people had to say about it.

Josh: he/they

05-11-2013 10:22:59 UTC

I would say that they keyword section of the glossary establishes that keywords don’t have to replace text on a like-for-like basis - they can replace words with concepts quite happily.

RaichuKFM: she/her

05-11-2013 12:55:50 UTC

If the removal was illegal, wouldn’t that make Josh’s entire edit illegal?

RaichuKFM: she/her

05-11-2013 14:02:07 UTC

Which would mean the clause that lets him win isn’t actually in the Sequester?

Clucky: he/him

05-11-2013 16:29:47 UTC

No, it was really two separate edits done at the same time

RaichuKFM: she/her

05-11-2013 19:07:28 UTC

No, I’m fairly certain that that was one edit, and if part of it was illegal the entire edit was illegal and so nothing says that Josh wins. That said I’d rather just have this over with, so while I won’t vote for I’m abstaining on the other one.