As of https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=Ruleset&oldid=13960, we already needed to claim score to get it, but there were only six tricks, and so all were always active. So I don’t think your point in time does exist.

Yes, I’m not sure any such past games exist: “active tricks” came in a day after players became required to claim tricks by name, and no new games were started between those two posts.

I welcome this proof!

as I’d prefer to not mix the two issues, upholding the old games first before CfJ-ing the third crown match.

> But I believe there was a point in the history of Giolitti, as played during this Dynasty, when a) there were active and inactive tricks, and b) a player did not have to explicitly name a trick to score it—it was dependent on Kevan’s review of points when judging the outcome of a game. I might be wrong, and I welcome the proof if so.

I feel like the burden of proof is on you and Josh here.

I could say “I’ve checked all 50 games and none of them were scored this way” and then you would have to go find a counter example.

So go find a counter example

As I understand it there can be no games where inactive tricks would have been scored silently: players have been required to call their scores since the 23rd of March, and the first game to be played with any tricks inactive started on the 29th, with the score-calling rule in its environment.

sure but weren’t there potentially games where someone scored an inactive trick, not realizing it was inactive?

potentially one of those games could’ve ended by score with their entire score for the play reduced to 0

I just feel whoever claims such a game exists should be the to prove it exists, because my claim it doesn’t exist doesn’t really hold any water unless you all trust me after I change my tune from “I legit donno if such a game exists” to “I checked them all and none of them exist”

Although I obviously have a horse in this race, I think this CfJ is somewhat unfair to not also have an escape option for unwinding the last few plays in the game. This would zero out Clucky’s unambiguous points as well.

Fwiw, pokes, although I didn’t share this with Brendan, Clucky did tell me not to feel like I should include an unwind clause of I CfJ’d, so presumably that’s okay - my assumption is that he wouldn’t be playing differently if this gambit were to be struck down.

Even if he wouldn’t play differently, it turns unambiguous l’Ossa points into zero points.

[Clucky] True, it’s possible that someone could have claimed the score of an inactive Trick during any later game, and that neither I nor their opponent noticed the mistake.

It’ll be impossible to disprove, though, as knowledge of the ability to so claim would have likely changed the way that some players would have played in some games - I don’t think that this is a counterfactual that we’ll ever be able to truly eliminate.

Which is why Brendan’s point of view here is persuasive: it’s simplest just to assume that the ruleset meant what we all thought it meant all along.

But “the ruleset meant what we all thought it meant all along” doesn’t feel like the argument Brendan is making

and “turns out the ruleset meant something other than what we all thought it meant all along” is a fairly common occurrence in blognomic

Sure, but the consequences of that upon a dynasty that’s almost over are incalculable.

Under those circumstances we almost always opt for the simplest possible solution.

The simplest possible solution is my CfJ.

So the following games on game 23 and later went the distance:

Game 23:
https://blognomic.com/archive/twenty_third_game_jumble_vs_raven1207

Game 33: https://blognomic.com/archive/thirty_third_game_clucky_vs_pokes#comments

Game 37: https://blognomic.com/archive/thirty_seventh_game_raven1207_vs_clucky#comments

Game 42: https://blognomic.com/archive/forty_second_game_clucky_vs_pokes#comments

obviously you’ll probably want to check my work, but nothing else I can do to prove that

Game 23, Raven got all the points he claimed.

Game 32 Clucky got all the points he claimed.

Game 37 Raven claimed 5 points but only scored 2. But his missed score was a Toro, which was active, so just looks like a mistake Kevan made (the game was a runaway scored 14-2, 14-5 would’ve been the same result)

Game 42 Kevan did not post a final score, just confirmed that I won. But no one tried to claim any inactive tricks

“you can’t score inactive tricks” and “turns out you can score inactive tricks” both seem like equally simple solutions to me

and if there have no games that have misscored because of this (just misplayed by everyone because no one noticed) I don’t really see the incalculable damage

(realized I never gave this an explicit )

i mean, we even noticed this little lack of clarity a week or two ago, didn’t we? but then we never fixed it successfully because we didn’t think it would be that relevant :0

my principles say

cov