Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Call for Judgment: I’m not that ugly!

Fewer than a quorum not voting against. Failed 2 votes to 3, by Kevan.

Adminned at 19 Nov 2019 18:29:38 UTC

So, TyGuy seems to think he can take this round away from me... Let’s look at the rule, though:

If a Monster stopped Recovering no fewer than 48 hours ago and has not taken a Battle Action since then, any Adventurer or the Priest may make a comment on the Battle Post, beginning with “[Distracted]” and stating that the Monster has lost interest in attacking the other Adventurers.

I would argue that a material and consistent difference exists in this dynastic ruleset between the terms “Monster” and “Adventurer”, and that all references to “a Monster” are specifically taken to mean “an Adventurer while being the Monster”. I have never stopped Recovering while being the Monster, simply because I have never been Recovering while being the Monster, therefore this rule does not apply to me.

I thus contend that TyGuy has acted illegally in finding me Distracted, using an Attack Action against me and declaring Kevan to be the next Vanguard, and that my 48-hour turn properly started when I Finished Transforming (on 18 November, at 23:49:00 UTC). I ask that these facts are recognised as being Gamestate, TyGuy’s illegally made comments in the Battle Post are held to be of no effect, and any illegal changes to the Jerez wiki page are reverted with prejudice.

I also ask for an extension to my turn, so that I cannot be found Distracted until 48 hours have elapsed from the moment this CfJ closes. In case anyone thinks of running down the clock even if this is resolved in my favour…

posted by The Duke of Waltham at 19 Nov 2019 10:11:00 UTC Comments (10)

Comments

Madrid:

19-11-2019 11:09:42 UTC

I’ll study this more in depth later, but this might involve Kevan as a Monster, because he was “a Monster” no fewer then 48 hours ago.

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

19-11-2019 12:40:19 UTC

I believe that my argument still applies: Kevan the Monster (“a Monster”) could be considered to have stopped Recovering when he ceased being the Monster, but he could neither have taken nor not have taken a Battle Action since then, by virtue of no longer being Kevan the Monster but plain old human Kevan instead.

In other words: there are two conditions that must be fulfilled by the same Monster for this rule to take effect, namely “stopped Recovering no fewer than 48 hours ago” and “has not taken a Battle Action since then”. No Monster can possibly have fulfilled both.

card:

19-11-2019 13:51:20 UTC

Hmmm in this case I think it works since the condition of the first paragraph can’t be met until the monster takes a battle action
for

Kevan: he/him

19-11-2019 14:29:56 UTC

Hmm, I disagree with the reading that “a Monster” means “an Adventurer while being the Monster” - I’d read it as “an Adventurer who is the Monster”. Monsterhood is a quality that an Adventurer gains and loses.

Who is the Monster? The Duke of Waltham. Did the Duke of Waltham stop Recovering no fewer than 48 hours ago? Yes.

Reading it otherwise seems like it would mean that if we had a clause of “if a player with a badge has never eaten an apple…”, it would still apply to a player who had eaten apples before acquiring the badge.

against

Madrid:

19-11-2019 16:03:17 UTC

Yes. As unfortunate as it is for Duke, I have to agree with Kevan’s reasoning. against

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

19-11-2019 16:30:17 UTC

Ahh… It seems I should have kept Kevan’s transgression up my sleeve for a little while.

You people are corrupting me.

card:

19-11-2019 16:47:12 UTC

Ohh I see where that reasoning comes from, since The Duke of Waltham had stopped recovering in the previous battle.
I’m not changing my vote because I think such interactions across battles shouldn’t happen.

TyGuy6:

19-11-2019 17:33:40 UTC

“You people are corrupting me.”

Welcome to Blognomic! But rather, consider this a test of your resolve, and a compliment to your abilities!

[card] I agree that weird interactions “shouldn’t” happen, but is that a reason to vote for a CfJ saying that they were illegal, (vs, say, a CfJ simply reversing them)? against

The Duke of Waltham: he/him

19-11-2019 17:59:27 UTC

“[A] CfJ simply reversing them”? I didn’t even consider that as an option; would that have an effect? It sounds a bit like begging.

TyGuy6:

19-11-2019 18:33:55 UTC

Up to you! As for whether it would have an effect, a CfJ can do pretty much anything an admin is not actually prohibited from doing!